HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 The Green PD Rezone or
19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCIL File#400-20/410-30/420-30/
450-30/600-60
DATE: February 3, 2015
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager "
SUBJECT: The Green Mixed Use Project - Planned Development Rezoning with related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (PLPA-2013-00013)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Green Mixed Use Project includes the construction of approximately 37,000 square feet of
retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six residential
neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site and related surface
parking lots, installation of utilities and services, site landscaping, pedestrian plazas, and
placement of identification signs. The current request includes approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, Site
Development Review for the Commercial Buildings, Vesting Tentative Map, a Development
Agreement, and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time. The costs associated with processing The Green Mixed Use project are
borne by the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
The public hearing on this item was continued from the November 4, 2014 City Council meeting
to the February 3, 2015 meeting. At the request of the Project Applicant, Staff recommends that
the City Council continue the public hearing to the City Council's Regular Meeting on April 7,
2015.
Submitted By 'Reviewed By
Community Development Director Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
This item was originally scheduled for a public hearing on November 4, 2014. The full City
Council Staff Report for the item is included as Attachment 1 to this Staff Report.
Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. 6.1
At that meeting, the City Council received the Staff presentation, opened the public hearing, and
on a 4-1 vote, decided to continue the item to the February 3, 2015 City Council meeting. On
January 20, 2015, the Project Applicant submitted a request to continue the item from February
3, 2015 to the City Council meeting on April 7, 2015 (Attachment 2).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
A notice of this public hearing, including the requested continuance, was published in the Valley
Times, mailed to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the project area boundaries,
mailed to all persons who spoke during the public hearing on November 4, 2014, and all
persons who have expressed an interest in being notified of actions related to this project were
notified via email.
The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on the City's website.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated November 4, 2014 with Attachments
(Due to the size of the files, Attachment 1 is in three parts)
2. Letter from Project Applicant dated January 20, 2015
Page 2 of 2
� �GIT'Y 'CLERK
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL s��-60
File - - -
DATE: November 4, 2014
TO Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT: The Green fixed I'w..Jse Project General Plan and Eastern aublin Specific Plan
Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (PLPA-20 1 3-000 1 3)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed Green Mixed Use Project includes approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and
restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six residential neighborhoods
with 372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The project includes related surface
parking lots, installation of utilities and services, site landscaping, pedestrian plazas, and
concepts for the design of identification signs. The current request includes approval of a
General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Rezone, Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project, "Vesting Tentative
Map, and a Development Agreement. Certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is also being considered. Site Development Review for the residential portion of
the project will came at a later date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time. The casts associated with processing The Green fixed Use Project are
borne by the Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and take the
following actions-.
1. Adapt the Resolution, Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, Adapting Environmental
Findings, a Statement of Overriding Con side ration s, and Mitigation Moniitoring and Reporting
Program lender CEQA for The Green Mixed Use Project;
. Adapt the Resolution, Amending the General Plan and Eastern Dubbin Specific Ilan for The
Green fixed Use Project;
3. Waive the first reading and INTRODUCE an Ordinance Rezoning 27.5 Acres at 5144 and
5344 Martinelli Way to a Planned Development Zoning District and Approving the Related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green fixed Use Project;
Page 1 of 9 ITEM NCI. 6.1
w w w
w 0 woo 0 Z w 0 w 'o Z 0
I'M
rr
Wp",
VON,
slelk
At the request of the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, on February 5,
2013, the City Council approved the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment Study to consider changing the land use designations for the parcel from
"General Commercial" to "Mixed Use"' in order to accommodate a future mixed use
commercial/residential project on the site (Attachments 1 and 2). When the City Council
approved the initiation of the General Plan Amendment Study, Staff was directed to prepare a
Fiscal Impact Analysis of the proposed land use change. On September 17, 2013 Staff
presented the completed analysis to the City Council for their review and consideration
(Attachment 3).
The City Council held a Study Session on July 15, 2014. The Study Session was intended to
provide the City Council with an overview of the proposed project and an opportunity for Staff
and the Applicant to receive City Council feedback and direction on the project and the terms of
the Development Agreement. The project design was generally well-received, although City
Councilmembers expressed continued reservations about the site converting from commercial
uses to a mixed use project that is primarily residential. The City Council provided direction on
the terms of the Development Agreement and the provision of affordable housing on the site.
A City Council Public Hearing to consider this project was originally scheduled on September
16, 2014. However, the applicant requested a continuance. The public hearing has now been
rescheduled and a notice of this public hearing has been provided as further described below.
Project Proposal
The Green Mixed Use project is proposed to include 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor dining areas and 372 attached multi-family residential units.
The Applicant is currently requesting approval of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project only, a
Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide the entire 27.5 acre site into multiple commercial and
residential parcels, a Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR). It is anticipated that Site Development Review for
the residential component of the project will be brought forward for consideration at a later date.
ANALYSIS
The analysis below describes the various components of the project.
GENERAL PLAN and EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
General Plan Arriendinents
Amendments to the General Plan are necessary in order to ensure the project, as proposed, is
consistent with the document. The main amendment to the General Plan is to change the land
use designation for the subject parcel from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable a
combination of commercial and residential uses on the project site. Figure 1-1 (General Plan
Land Use Map) shall be amended accordingly. Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential:
Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be updated to subtract 27.5 acres from the General
Commercial land use category and add 27.5 acres to the Mixed Use land use category.
Page 3 of 9
Eastern Dublin ,Specific Flan Amendments
Similar to the general Plan Amendment, Figure 4.1 (Lend Use Map) shall be amended to
change the land use designation for the subject parcel from "general Commercial" to "Mixed
Use".
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shell be updated to subtract the
project acreage from the general Commercial land use category and add the project acreage to
the Mixed Use land use category. Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and
Employment Summary) shall be updated to subtract the development potential square footage
from the General Commercial land use category and add the development potential square
footage and residential population to the Mixed Use land use category. Table 4. (Projected
Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be updated to include the amended jabs number based on the land
use change from general Commercial to Mixed Use. Lastly, Table 4.11 (Hacienda gateway
Subarea Development Potential) shall be updated to subtract the project acreage from the
General Commercial land use category and add the project acreage to the Mixed l'w.Jse land use
category.
The resolution approving amendments to the General Flan and Eastern Dublin Specific Flan
for the project is included as Attachment 4 to this Staff report.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE
The application includes a Planned Development rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage
Development Plan.
A Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan its proposed in accordance with Section 8.82.040 of
the Dublin Zoning Ordinance and addresses bath the commercial and residential portions of the
project. The Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan allows for up to 40,000 square feet of retail
commercial development on the project site and up to 400 residential units. This is slightly
larger than the proposed project and is the maximum amount of commercial square footage and
maximum residential unlit intensity studied in the Supplemental Environmental Impact report for
this project. This was done in order to allow the ultimate size of the project to be adjusted
slightly as the exact building sizes and locations were determined, assuming all other
development standards, including the provision of required parking, could be met.
The Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan details the permitted and conditional uses; site
development standards, architectural and landscape standards and guidelines; data on site
area, proposed densities and maximum amount of development on the project site. Please
refer to Attachment 4 for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan.
The Planned Development Zoning specifies the parking requirements for the overall project site
and includes the overall site layout, including parking. Sheet 01.08 of the Project Plans (Exhibit
A to Attachment 8) illustrates the locations of the various parking spaces on the project site for
both commercial and residential uses.
The Planned Development Zoning requires 2 enclosed parking spaces plus 0.8 guest spaces
per residential unit for the residential portion of the project. In order to validate the provision of
0.8 guest parking spaces per residential unit in this Planned Development Zoning District, a
parking analysis was prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants and accepted by the City's
Traffic Engineer.
Page 4 of
The Planned Development Ordinance that includes the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
is included as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report.
SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Site Development Review approval is requested only for the commercial portion of the project
site at this time. Site Development Review for the residential portion of the project will follow at
a later date. The following is a summary of the key components of the commercial portion of the
project associated with the Site Development Review.
Overall Project Design
The project, as proposed, is designed to include approximately 37,000 square feet of
commercial buildings with enclosed outdoor dining areas and related improvements. The full
set of Project Plans is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
The site is oriented to two north-south linear open space elements that include a plaza in the
commercial portion of the project and a future common green space in the future residential
portion of the project. This open space element, referred to as "The Green," aligns with the
main north-south entry into the Persimmon Place commercial development on the north side of
Martinelli Way.
Site Plan, Access, and Circulation:
The project site is bounded by Martinelli Way to the north, Interstate 580 to the south, Arnold
Road to the west and Hacienda Drive to the east. The overall orientation of the project is inward
to the pedestrian plaza, with seven of the eight commercial buildings forming the core of the
project and aligning on the north-south axis of the main project entry. Buildings 100, 200, and
300 are at the northern end of the project site and the other five are centered on The Green.
Building 800 sits in the middle of The Green plaza and it provides a visual anchor and buffer
between the commercial and residential areas (Attachment 6, Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project
Plans).
The main parking field for the commercial portion of the project is near Building 100, but there
are also parking areas at the back of Buildings 400-700. Attachment 6, Sheet C1.03 illustrates
the location of the parking areas relative to the commercial buildings.
A main drive aisle bisects the site in a north-south direction, connecting to the Persimmon Place
entry on the north. This drive aisle serves as the main vehicular and pedestrian access from
Martinelli into the project site. The entry off Arnold Road will primarily serve the future
residential development, but will also provide access to the commercial buildings. There is also
a right-in, right-out driveway providing access to the main commercial parking area between
Buildings 100 and 200 along Martinelli Way.
New bicycle facilities will be provided along Martinelli Way in the form of a Class 1, ten foot wide
multi use path and along Arnold Road in the form of a Class 11 six foot wide, in-street bike lane.
Bicycle facilities already exist on Hacienda Drive. Bike lockers as well as conventional bike
racks will be provided on site. Pedestrian access to and around the site is illustrated on
Attachment 6, Sheet C1.04 of the Project Plans. The Project Developer will be providing
enhanced paving inside the intersection at Martinelli and in the crosswalks north across
Martinelli (at Hacienda) and east across Hacienda (at Martinelli). The Developers of the
Persimmon Place shopping center are providing enhanced crosswalks that connect both
developments to one another.
Page 8 of 9
Architecture:
The design aesthetic of the commercial buildings offers a modern interpretation of agrarian
vernacular architecture that had a place in the Tri-Valley in the early- to mid- 20th century. The
look and feel of the commercial district and complementary residential neighborhoods are
intended to be a welcome counterpoint to more traditional suburban communities.
The buildings are designed to incorporate authentic and rich materials that are employed in their
natural state, including heavy use of metal, wood, and glass as the main building materials. The
use of stucco is understated and siding is utilized in hues that allow the texture and scale to be
prominent. Bold colors are used sparingly, and only as an accent.
Features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, storefront designs, canopies,
trellises, signs, light fixtures, and landscaping contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level
both along the covered pedestrian promenades and in The Green at the center of the
commercial district. Comfortable, functional outdoor plazas where people will gather and
socialize, with landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features
provide an appropriate urban scale for the center.
Sheets A3.0.1 through A3.1.8 of the Project Plan Set (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) illustrate the
color building elevations and material notations for each of the buildings on the project site. The
building material and color palette to be utilized throughout the retail center will be provided for
Planning Commission review at the public hearing.
PpLking.
The proposed commercial component of the project includes the provision of 299 parking
spaces which exceeds the 267 spaces that are required to meet the projected demand based
on future uses envisioned for the center, including the enclosed outdoor dining areas that will be
provided for the benefit of specific tenants. The remaining (299-267=32) 32 spaces will help to
satisfy the guest parking for the future residential component of the project. The parking table is
noted on Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6).
Landscaping:
The project site is focused around a central green and the landscape concept emphasizes the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment with amenities that complement the
architectural vision of the project. With the enhanced paving throughout the commercial areas
and generous sidewalks along the main north-south circulation routes that are adorned with
street trees and pedestrian-scaled lighting, the project provides a strong pedestrian connection
both between the residential and commercial portions of the project as well as with its neighbors
to the north, east, and future neighbors to the west.
Street trees will be installed along the project perimeter adjacent to the sidewalks within the
public right of way. The project perimeter along Interstate 580 will have a six-foot tall wrought
iron fence that will eventually be covered in vines and landscaping to help provide a visual
buffer between the freeway and the future residential units. Because this area is heavily
occupied by a wide variety of utilities, finding locations to plant trees without interfering with
underground installations proves difficult. Instead, the fence will be installed and the area will
be planted with species that will grow up and through the fence to eventually provide a solid
landscape screen without the bulk and starkness of a wall.
Page 6 of 9
In addition to the trees provided in the parking lot and along the front of the retail/restaurant
buildings, two pedestrian pathways have been designed to provide a travel route between
Martinelli Way and the front of the two main buildings. Trees in wells with decorative grates will
be planted along these pedestrian pathways.
The site has several dedicated outdoor seating areas, that are adjacent to future restaurant
commercial tenant spaces: at Buildings 100, 200, 300, 400, and 800. These spaces will be
activated with tables and chairs, planters, and other outdoor site furniture.
The landscape sheets (1-2.0-1-14.0) of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) provide
enlargements of the key areas on the project site, the designs for both the Commercial and
Residential Green Plazas, and samples of materials to be utilized in these common open
spaces areas.
The Resolution approving Site Development Review for the commercial portion of the project is
included as Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
The Applicant is requesting to subdivide the three parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre
project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple
units in each building/parcel, and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels. There will be a
reciprocal parking agreement and reciprocal access agreements between the commercial and
residential parcels to ensure that residential guest parking can be accommodated in the
commercial parking lots. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map conforms to the City of Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as proposed to be amended, and proposed
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval.
Sheet TM2.01 of the Project Plans (Exhibit A to Attachment 6) illustrates the proposed
subdivision of the parcels. The Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is included as
Attachment 6 to this Staff Report.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code
(hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of
real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to
obtain certain commitments and establish certain development rights for the property.
Development Agreements are approved by an ordinance of the City Council upon
recommendation by the Planning Commission. The proposed Development Agreement (Exhibit
A to Attachment 7) applies to the entire 27.5 acre site and was drafted with input from City Staff,
the project proponent, and the City Attorney.
The Development Agreement provides security to the developer that the City will not change its
zoning and other laws applicable to the project. The Development Agreement becomes
effective for a term of five years with an option to extend for up to five additional years with
payment of $200,000 per year the agreement is extended (Development Agreement Section 6).
The City also benefits from entering into the Development Agreement with the property owner.
Among other things, the Development Agreement regulates the phasing of the project and helps
Page 7 of 9
facilitate restaurant users. Under the terms of the Development Agreement Exhibit D, issuance
of residential building permits is tied to the completion of the commercial components of the
project. Exhibit B of the Development Agreement also requires the Developer to make a
community benefit payment of$2,790,000 ($7,500/unit). A portion of these funds will be used to
pay the Dublin San Ramon Services District capacity reserve fees for local and regional sewage
systems for restaurant users, within the Project as an economic development tool to entice
restaurant users.
The proposed project is subject to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the
Zoning Ordinance) and is required to set aside 12.5%, of the units (i.e. 47 units) in the project as
affordable units or as otherwise determined by the City Council to satisfy the Inclusionary
Zoning Regulations. The Development Agreement Exhibit C specifies the means by which the
developer will satisfy this requirement which includes construction of 14 on-site affordable units,
payment of $1,600,000 as in-lieu fees for 16 affordable units, and the purchase of affordable
housing credits to satisfy 17 affordable units.
The Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and
Stockbridge/B' V Emerald Place LLC is included as Attachment 7 to this Staff Report.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On August 26, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on The Green Mixed Use
project. The Planning Commission had a robust discussion on the proposed General Plan
Amendment from Commercial to Mixed Use, several of the environmental aspects of the project
included traffic, air quality, noise, and the proposed project design. At the conclusion of the
discussion, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to adopt five Resolutions recommending
approval of the project to the City Council. The August 26, 2014 draft meeting minutes are
included as Attachment 8 to the Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolutions 14-47, 14-
48, 14-49, 14-50, and 14-51 (without attachments) are included as Attachment 9.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared to address potential
environmental impacts of The Green Mixed Use Project. The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR
(SC' # 2013072032) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The Draft SEIR was released for public review for a 45-day period, from May 7, 2014
to June 23, 2014. Comments were received from six public agencies and interested parties.
The comment letters, along with the City's response to those comments, are contained in the
Final SEIR. The Draft and Final SEIRs are included as Exhibit A to Attachment 10 of this Staff
Report.
As required by CEQA, the Final SEIR (that includes the Response to Comments) was sent
directly to those agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR. The SEIR (comprised of
the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR) is available for review at City Hall during normal business hours.
The documents are also posted on the City's website.
The Resolution recommending City Council certification of the Final SEIR is included as
Attachment 10 to this Staff Report.
Page 8 of 9
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH
A notice of this public hearing was published in the Valley Times, mailed to all property owners
and tenants within 300 feet of the project area boundaries,, and all persons who have expressed
an interest in being notified of actions related to this project were notified via email.
The Staff Report for this public hearing was also available on the City's website.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Council Staff Report dated February 5, 2013 without
Attachments
2. City Council Resolution 09-13
3. City Council Staff Report dated September 17, 2013
4. Resolution amending the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
5. Ordinance rezoning 27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way to a
Planned Development Zoning District and approving the related
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
6. Resolution approving a Site Development Review Permit for the
Commercial Buildings and Vesting Tentative Map 8203 for The
Green Mixed Use Project, with the Project Plans included as
Exhibit A
7. Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of
Dublin and Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC related to The
Green Mixed Use Project, with the Development Agreement included
as Exhibit A
8. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated August 26, 2014
9. Planning Commission Resolutions 14-47, 14-48, 14-49, 14-50, and
14-51
10.Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report, adopting
Environmental Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations,
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA for
The Green Mixed Use Project, with the Draft and Final SEIRs
included as Exhibit A
Page 9 of 9
STAFF REI ORT CIT'Y CLERK
File #420- 0
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 5, 20113
Td: Honorable Mayor and City Counciilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager � °�
SUBJECT': Green on Park. Place General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study Initiation Request
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will consider whether to initiate a General Flan and Specific Plan Amendment
Study to change bath the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations
for 27.45 acres of property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General Commercial to a
new Mixed Use land use designation. This item was originally noticed for the December 18,
2012 City Council meeting, and was postponed to this meeting at the Applicant's request.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No financial impact to the City. All casts associated with preparing the General Plan and
Specific Plan Amendment Study, if authorized by the City Council, would be borne by the
Applicant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council either adopt a Resolution approving the initiation of a
General Plan and Eastern Dubbin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use
designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda give from General
Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation; OR adopt a Resolution denying the
initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the
land use designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from
General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation.
o
m..
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
DESCRIPTION:
StockbridgelBHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP is requesting City Council consideration
to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study on 27.45 acres of
property they own at the northwest corner of Hacienda Drive and Interstate 580.
Page 1 of 5 ITEM NO. 8,2
The project site is shown in the Vicinity Map below:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
I P f S
I'
i
F"rc posed Dublin SAP/sybase
crossings project
site
Hacienda
4�� Transit „
1 Crossings
Center �� 'I
Q
A
Project � ;
Site
The property currently has a General Plan lend use designation of General Commercial and is
entitled for a 808,000 square foot shopping center branded "The Green on Park Place"'. The
project was approved by the City Council in 2008 and consisted of a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and approval of a five-year Development
Agreement. The Development Agreement vests the project entitlements through December 1 ,
2013.
The current General Plan land use designation for the subject property and the surrounding
properties are shown in the figure on the following page.:
Page 2 of 5
Figure 2 General Plan Land Use
The existing General
land
Commercial
designation t accommodates
a; range of regional- and
community-serving retail„
service, and office uses.
Campus office Uses anticipated in this
designation include, but are
not limited toy: retail uses all
�,,,, offi ce uses,.. hotels, banksp.
-ks/Pugauuc F;ecie ion � service uses, and
l� s
restaurants and ether eating
and drinking uses. Mixed
+ ic� use projects incorporating
retail, service, and/o�r office
General
. uses are encouraged, with
-. " Corrnerial
residential uses also allowed
Campus Office as part of the mix when
// ;;, �Gemerall +fiilllllllullu o' location and design ensure
bra ect site: qi
i��� Crr�merc� compatibility.
Gtockbriidge/BHV Emerald
Place Land Company, LLP
I'�1':'S;ROAD is requesting that the City
Council initiate a General
p
Plan and Eastern Dubbin
Specific Plan Amendment Study to examine changing the land use designation for the 27.45
acre parcel from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use designation that would allow
medium-high to high-density residential and commercial uses. The Applicant's intent is to
design a residential and retail development at this site that includes between 20,000 to 40,000
square feet of commercial retail uses and approximately 450 to 750 dwelling units, depending
on product type (Attachment 1 .
Staff has concerns with the proposed conversion of this 27.45 acre site from General
Commercial to a predominantly residential project with limited retail square footage. Staffs
concerns include:
1. Loss of prime commercial real estate on the 1-580 corridor in a key location across the
street from an existing regional-serving power center (Hacienda Crossings);
. Challenges with locating residential units immediately adjacent to Interstate 580,
including the potential for multi-story residential buildings to block visibility of commercial
uses and the need to study and mitigate air quality and noise impacts on future residents;
.. Impacts to the City's park deficit by adding several hundred new residential units without
the corresponding provision of parkland and property designated for semi-public facilities;
4. Adding new residents in lieu of adding new commercial businesses will negatively impact
the City's jobs-housing balance;
Page 3 of 5
5. Potential pressure to convert other nearby sites (designated Campus Office) to
residential uses-,
6. Impacts, to the City's General Fund as a result of adding new residents (and the
corresponding cost to provide services) to a prime commercial site that was intended to
provide sales tax revenue, services for the community, and employment; and
7. Potential impacts to nearby properties that anticipate developing medium-high and high-
density residential uses (i.e. Dublin Crossing, Esprit/Metropolitan site at the Transit
Center).
Due to the concerns regarding the project's potential impacts noted above, Staff is not
supportive of the requested General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study
as currently proposed. However, Staff has prepared draft Resolutions both approving and
denying the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study for the City
Council's consideration. The Resolutions are included with this Staff Report as Attachments 2
and 3.
City Staff presented a copy of the request letter (Attachment 1) to the standing Economic
Development Committee as an informational item. The Committee expressed concerns about
the request as proposed and, more specifically, about the collective reduction in commercial
retail square footage in this area beyond what was originally anticipated at 305,000 square feet.
If the City Council determines that a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study should be initiated, Staff will begin an examination of the concerns noted above and will
return to the City Council with a brief fiscal analysis of the proposed project to determine
whether those concerns are valid. Once the results of the fiscal analysis are known, the City
Council can direct Staff to further process the Amendment Study or conclude the study at that
time. If the City Council decides to proceed with the Amendment Study, Staff would then:
1. Determine the associated impacts from the land use change-,
2. Conduct the appropriate level of environmental review and documentation;
3. Perform any additional studies that may be required; and
4. Prepare an analysis of the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and the
City Council.
Work on the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study would be
completed concurrently with processing any other entitlements that are requested by the
Applicant. Once the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study is
complete, Staff would then bring the application to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation to City Council. The project would then move forward to the City Council for
their consideration.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTSIPUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to review a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study.
Although not required, the City mailed notices to all property owners and tenants within 300 feet
of the subject property. A notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted in the
designated posting places. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant.
Page 4 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the initiation of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Information Collection).
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Applicant's Request Letter dated Nlovember 16, 2012
2. Resolution approving the initiation of a General Plan and Specific
Plan Amendment Study to change both the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations, for 27.45 acres
of property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General
Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation
3. Resolution denying the initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendment Study to change both the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan land use designations for 27.45 acres of
property at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda Drive from General Commercial
to a new Mixed Use land use designation
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 9-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON
APPROXIMATELY 27.45 ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 HACIENDA DRIVE FROM GENERAL
COMMERCIAL TO A NEW MIXED USE LAND USE DESIGNATION
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, AND 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP is requesting that the City
Council initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to examine
changing the land use designation for the 27.45 acre parcel from General Commercial to a new
Mixed Use designation that would allow medium-high to high-density residential and commercial
uses; and
WHEREAS, the initiation request has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was found to be Categorically Exempt under
Section 15306, Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted outlining the issues surrounding the request; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all such reports, recommendations, and
testimony hereinabove set forth, and supports the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendment Study.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby approve the initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Study to change the land use designation on approximately 27.45 acres at 5144 and 5344 Hacienda
Drive from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATT T:
City Clerk
Reso No. 9-13,Adopted 2-5-13, Item 8.2 Page 1 of 1
or
19 82 STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
` CITY COUNCIL File #420-30
DATE: September 17, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Joni Pattillo City Manager""'"
SUBJECT: "The Green" Fiscal Impact Analysis (PLPA-2013-00013)
Prepared by Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a status report on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for Regency Centers
and The Green, which are two General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment studies
that are currently underway. When the General Plan Amendment Study was initiated for The
Green, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis for their consideration
and to determine if the General Plan Amendment Study should continue or be concluded. Staff
is requesting the City Council to review the Fiscal Impact Analysis and provide direction on how
to proceed with General Plan Amendment Study.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment Study, including the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, are borne by the Applicant. Therefore, preparation of this Study does not have
a financial impact to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report on the Fiscal Impact Analysis
for The Green; and provide direction to Staff and the Applicant on whether the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study on The Green should continue or be
concluded.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Community Development Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 7.1
DESCRIPTION:
On February 5, 2013, the City Council initiated a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment Study for 27.45 acres of property at the northwest corner of Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580 owned by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP.
The project site is shown in the Vicinity Map below:
Figure 1: Project Vicinity
Proposed Dublin SAP/Sybase
Crossings project � �� "
site
d
P
w � Proposed
Village @Dublin
r Transit
i Hacienda
Center ��
Crossingsyr
The Green site
The property currently has a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of
General Commercial and is entitled for a 305,000 square foot shopping center branded "The
Green on Park Place". The project was approved by the City Council in 2008 and consisted of a
Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning, Site Development Review, and approval of a five-year
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement vests the project entitlements through
December 18, 2013.
The existing General Commercial land use designation accommodates a range of regional- and
community-serving retail, service, and office uses.
On February 5, 2013, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLP received
authorization from the City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to determine
whether the land use designation for the 27.45 acre parcel should be changed from General
Page 2 of 4
Commercial to Mixed Use in order to allow medium to medium-high density residential and
commercial uses. If the City Council were to ultimately approve this change in the land use
designation, the Applicant's intent is to design a residential and retail development at this site
that includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial retail uses, and approximately
400 residential units with a combination of product types.
When City Staff presented the General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment request to the City
Council on February 5, 2013, the staff report outlined several concerns with the proposed
conversion of the site from General Commercial to a predominantly residential project with
limited retail square footage. Staff's concerns included the potential fiscal impacts to the City's
General Fund as a result of adding new residents (and the corresponding cost to provide
services) to a prime commercial site that was intended to provide sales tax revenue, services for
the community, and employment opportunities.
The City Council initiated the General Plan Amendment Study and directed Staff to prepare a
fiscal analysis of the proposed project for consideration in order to determine if the General Plan
Amendment Study should proceed. The Fiscal Impact Analysis is complete. Staff is requesting
the City Council to review the Fiscal Impact Analysis and provide direction on whether to
continue processing the General Plan Amendment Study or conclude the Study.
ANALYSIS:
The City retained Keyser Marston Associates to conduct an analysis of the fiscal impacts of both
the proposed The Green project and the proposed Village @ Dublin Retail Project, which are
adjacent to one another. While these are two separate projects, their potential impacts are
interrelated. The analysis (Attachment 1) compared the existing land use development potential
on each site with the project that is proposed on each site, as follows:
The Village @ Dublin site The Green site
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Existing GP: Proposed Project: Existing Approvals: Proposed Project:
Campus Office Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Mixed Use
Center Center
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Residential Units 400
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Commercial SF
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Grocery 40,000
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Retail/Restaurant 125,000 305,000 40,000
............................................................................................................................................................................................ ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Office 400,000
With the development potential for each alternative noted above, the Fiscal Impact Analysis
concluded that each scenario would be fiscally neutral or better. However, the fiscal benefits of
the two scenarios on The Green project site are quite different:
The Village @ Dublin site The Green site
Existing GP: Proposed Project: Existing Approvals: Proposed Project:
Campus Office Retail Commercial Retail Commercial Mixed Use
Center Center
Estimated Net Annual $69,000 $306,0000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Surplus to General Fund
General Fund Impacts of + $237,000 annually - $745,000 annually
Proposed Project vs.
existing entitlement
Page 3 of 4
If The Green site land use designation changes from General Commercial to Mixed Use to allow
the development of the residential and commercial project, as proposed, the net annual surplus
for the General Fund would be $745,000 less than if the 305,000 square foot commercial project
(approved in 2008) were constructed. However, the property owner has indicated that they are
unable to build the larger commercial project at this time, and therefore the $1,024,000 General
Fund gain would likely not be realized within the next five to ten years. The Mixed Use project,
however, could begin development during the FY 2014/2015 and be completed and occupied
within two to three years resulting in a near-term increase in General Fund revenue of$279,000
per year.
If the Village @ Dublin site land use designation changes from Campus Office to General
Commercial to allow the development of the retail commercial center, as proposed, the net
annual surplus for the General Fund would be $237,000 more than if an office project were
constructed (even with the approved sales tax reimbursement program in place). However, the
near-term impact to the General Fund will be an increase of$306,000 per year because there is
no proposed office developer or user that is proposing to use the site in the near term, while the
development of the retail center is expected to take place during the FY 2014/2015.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on whether the fiscal impacts that may result
from the implementation of The Green project are acceptable, and whether the General
Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for The Green should continue or be
concluded. If the City Council direction is to continue the study, the Applicant will continue
processing their request for a change to the General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designations, a Planned Development Rezoning and related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan,
Tentative Map, Site Development Review, and the appropriate environmental documentation for
the Mixed Use project. If the City Council direction is to conclude the study at this time, Staff will
cease work on the project and the existing entitlements will remain in place until such time that
the Development Agreement expires in December.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public noticing is not required to provide an update to the City Council and to seek policy
direction. A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
None required.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and The Green, prepared
by Keyser Marston Associates, dated August 23, 2013
Page 4 of 4
K L Y S L,R / 'i R ST0,N A S,S : 1 C,III A' IIF ,�
ADVISORS M E''LJ1 VO,'✓'I ]UVAI L': KFAL. LS INFE V) Vlvv —4.:"1N"PwhLt�J 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director
J',,[A l 1',1', t
of ,,.Y, City of Dublin
't FFi rl li.l.f F W.I wl A ,r,.,
L..,e,y,a."'.?I L 7 L V F IS.C'l l.'•,.0
From: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
r"11.1_" Date: August 23, 2013
X31 Ii I;I f_ 7 I1:,7=
E'l.I D I..K, Ael,I[A IU', Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place
17"olt kY 11 ,I.",(A
H In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has evaluated
the recurring annual fiscal impacts on the City of Dublin (City) General Fund and Gas
Jr�i"4E15 r,,F0,/t�i Q:
_lrx4 ,"Y rIG>��9 Tax Fund to be generated by alternative land uses on the Regency Centers and Green
1`l"` " `o on Park Place sites. Changes to the land use designation and zoning of both sites are being considered and the purpose of the analysis is to provide information regarding the
potential fiscal implications of the proposed changes.
I..fl J` 111".4. I111M II:
I',GJf.a v i 4dJe
The sites are bounded by Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Interstate 580, and Arnold
Road. The Regency Centers site is a 14.3-acre parcel adjacent to Dublin Boulevard. The
City is considering changing the site's land use designation from Campus Office to
General Commercial Campus Office, which would permit the development of a retail
center. The Green on Park Place development site is on 27.4 acres south of the
Regency Centers site. For this site, the City is considering changing its land use
designation from General Commercial to a new Mixed Use land use designation, which
would be required for the proposed predominantly residential Green on Park Place
project.
The following chart summarizes the alternative development programs that have been
evaluated for the two sites. Alternative 2 for the Green on Park Place site is the program
that is being evaluated in accordance with CEQA. The alternative development
programs for the Regency Centers site as well as the "Alternative 1" program for the
Green on the Park Place Site have been provided by City of Dublin staff.
160 VAC;I I IC A'V1:NUf"SUITE 204 > SAN FRANC IS .0,CAI F FOR NFA 94111 A� M'Ht.NE,415 398,3050 > FAX 415 397 5065
001-002;jf
WNV'V'.KLYSL1:kMARS Lo:bNl O M 11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 2
Regency Centers Site Green on Park Place Site
Alternative 2 - Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
Alternative 1 - permitted under Existing EIR Program;
Existing Land Permitted under
Proposed Land Land Use
New Use Designation Use Designation Designation Proposed Land
Development Use Designation
Residential Units 400 du
Commercial SF 40,000
Grocery Retail
Restaurants 35,000 35,000
Other Retail 125,000 270,000 5,000
Office 400,000
400,000 165,000 305,000 40,000
Approach and Key Assumptions
Given the lack of detailed programs for three of the four alternatives, this fiscal analysis
is intended to provide order of magnitude estimates of the impacts of the development
alternatives upon build-out. All impacts are expressed in current, 2013 dollars. Similar to
the analysis that KMA prepared of the Dublin Crossing project, the major revenue
sources, such as property and sales taxes, have been estimated based on regional
home prices and construction costs and sales productivity levels required to support new
construction. Other revenues and all service costs have been estimated by applying per
capita budget factors derived from the City's budget forecast for FY 2013/14 to each
alternative development program.
Retail sales tax revenues are a key driver of the positive fiscal impact estimates for the
retail-focused alternatives. It is important to note that this analysis examines only rg oss
taxable sales of the retail components to be generated upon completion and
stabilization. It does not address the source of retail sales to be generated by the retail
tenants. Specifically, the analysis does not examine the degree to which the sales will be
generated by a transfer of sales from existing Dublin retailers. While transfer sales are
new sales to the specific retail tenants, they do not reflect an increase in total sales tax
revenues to the city. The analysis does reflect the terms of the "Agreement for the
Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax Revenues between the City of Dublin and
Regency Centers." Under that Agreement, a portion of annual City sales tax revenues
generated by the Regency Center's Alternative 2 program is to be rebated to Regency
Center when annual taxable sales reach $50 million.
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 3
The analysis does not include one-time revenues or revenues that are sized and restricted
to off-set service costs or impacts, such as building permit revenues or impact fees.
Key assumptions incorporated into the analysis are as follows:
• That each alternative will be successful and well-received by the marketplace.
There may be significant differences in the degree to which the alternatives are
feasible from both a market and a financial perspective. The analysis does not
address any such differences in feasibility or any differences in the time frame in
which the concepts could be supported by the marketplace and built.
• That the retail tenants will generate a level of sales that is consistent with
standard industry hurdles to support the cost of new construction.
• That the office tenants will not generate any use or "business to business" tax
revenues.
• That police and fire costs reflect citywide per capita averages for employees and
residents, and do not include the costs of calls generated by customers in the
retail scenarios.
• That there are is no additional new public infrastructure that will need to be
maintained or any special service requirements for any of the alternatives. The
inclusion of infrastructure maintenance costs would likely have a material impact
on the magnitude of surplus estimated for each scenario.
The technical analysis is presented in the attached detail tables.
Order of Magnitude Findings
1. Annual General Fund and Gas Tax Fund Impacts Upon Build-out
The analysis indicates that for both sites, the retail alternatives would generate a
significant annual surplus to the City of Dublin'. As shown in the chart below, the retail
alternative for the Regency Center site is estimated to generate an annual surplus of
approximately $535,000 before taking into account the sales tax rebate to Regency
Centers and $306,000 net of the rebate 2. Because of its larger size (305,000 s.f), and
' The analysis evaluates only gross taxable sales, not net new taxable sales after deducting any
sales that are being transferred from existing Dublin retailers to the new retailers on the subject
sites.
2 The $306,000 surplus estimate is net of the sales tax reimbursement to Regency Center. The
unadjusted surplus (before the rebate to Regency Center)is estimated to total $535,000. KMA
estimates that the 165,000 square foot retail alternative for the Regency Centers site will
generate approximately $47.9 million of annual taxable sales upon stabilization, resulting in
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 4
the absence of a sales tax sharing agreement, the retail scenario for Green on the Park
is estimated to generate an annual surplus in excess of$1.0 million.
The office and mixed use alternatives are estimated to generate smaller annual
surpluses. The office scenario for the proposed Regency Centers site is anticipated to
generate an approximate $69,000 annual surplus and the mixed use alternative (EIR
project) for Green on Park Place is estimated to generate a $279,000 annual surplus.
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Annual Recurring Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Fiscal Impacts 400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Office Retail Retail 40k SF Retail
General Fund
Revenues, Before Rebate $453,000 $648,000 $1,251,000 $1,161,000
Expenditures $384,000 $113,000 $227,000 $918,000
Net Annual GF Impact, $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Before Rebate
Gas Tax Revenue L01 Lo L $36,000
Net Annual Combined City $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Surplus, Before Sales Tax
Rebate
Net Annual Combined City
Surplus, After Sales Tax $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Rebate
2. Maior Revenue Sources and Expense Categories
The most significant sources of General Fund revenues for all of the scenarios are
property taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes in lieu of motor vehicle fees. For the
office and mixed use alternatives, property taxes are the largest source of revenues. For
the retail alternatives, sales taxes alone represent over 70% of all revenues.
$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the City of Dublin. This projection falls slightly short of
the $50 million tax sharing threshold stipulated in the agreement with Regency Center. Under the
terms of the agreement, the City reimburses Regency approximately 50% of annual city sales tax
revenues generated at a $500,000 threshold. Since the projection is close to the threshold, to be
conservative it has been assumed that sharing will occur, and that net City sales tax revenues will
be $250,000 rather than $479,000.
001-002;jf
11982.005
To: Linda Smith, Economic Development Director August 23, 2013
Subject: Fiscal Impact Analysis of Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Page 5
The most significant expense components are police and fire department services, and
culture and leisure services. These three service categories account for over 85% of City
expenditures. Typically, public works department expenses would also be a significant
expense category but have not been included in this analysis because of a lack of
specificity regarding the public infrastructure of each alternative. If the City is obligated to
maintain any new infrastructure, then annual city service costs would exceed the
estimates contained in this memorandum, and the magnitude of estimated surpluses
would decrease.
Technical Tables
A series of technical tables are attached:
Summary Tables
Table 1 Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Build-out
Table 2 Alternative Programs
Table 3 Alternatives Demographics
Table 4 Estimated Assessed Value
Table 5 Existing Demographic Data— City of Dublin
Table 6 Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue — General and Gas Tax Funds
Table 7 Estimated Household Income
Table 8 General Fund Operating Expense Assumptions
Table 9 Estimated Annual Alternatives General Fund Expenditures
Appendix Tables
Appendix 1 Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources —City of Dublin 2013/14
Budget
Appendix 2 Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures —City of Dublin 2013/14
Budget
Appendix 3 Commercial Development Cost/Valuation Estimates
Appendix 4a Revenue Source Assumptions— Regency Centers Alternative 1
Appendix 4b Revenue Source Assumptions — Regency Centers Alternative 2
Appendix 4c Revenue Source Assumptions —Green on Park Place Alternative 1
Appendix 4d Revenue Source Assumptions — Green on Park Place Alternative 2
001-002;jf
11982.005
Table 1
Annual Revenue and Expenditure Summary at Buildout
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin, CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Revenue or Expenditure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Category 400 k SF Office 165 k SF Retail 305 k SF Retail 400 du/40 k SF Ret
General Fund Revenues'
Property Taxes $290,000 64.0% $117,000 27.9% $236,000 18.9% $604,000 52.0%
Sales Tax $59,000 13.0% $250,000 59.7% $910,000 72.7% $313,000 27.0%
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $57,000 12.6% $23,000 5.5% $47,000 3.8% $120,000 10.3%
Franchise Fees $31,000 6.8% $9,000 2.1% $18,000 1.4% $74,000 6.4%
Property Transfer Tax $8,000 1.8% $3,000 0.7% $6,000 0.5% $31,000 2.7%
Fines/ Forfeitures/Penalties $3,000 0.7% $1,000 0.2% $2,000 0.2% $6,000 0.5%
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $2,000 0.4% $14,000 3.3% $27,000 2.2% $9,000 0.8%
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $1,000 0.2% $0 0.0% $1,000 0.1% $4,000 0.3%
Business License Tax $2,000 0.4% $2,000 0.5% $4,000 0.3% $0 0.0%
$453,000 100.0% $419,000 100.0% $1,251,000 100.0% $1,161,000 100.0%
General Fund Expenditures z
Police ($165,000) 43.0% ($49,000) 43.4% ($98,000) 43.2% ($396,000) 43.1%
Fire ($116,000) 30.2% ($34,000) 30.1% ($69,000) 30.4% ($278,000) 30.3%
Culture and Leisure Services ($51,000) 13.3% ($15,000) 13.3% ($30,000) 13.2% ($122,000) 13.3%
General Government ($20,000) 5.2% ($6,000) 5.3% ($12,000) 5.3% ($47,000) 5.1%
Community Development ($12,000) 3.1% ($4,000) 3.5% ($7,000) 3.1% ($29,000) 3.2%
Transportation ($12,000) 3.1% ($3,000) 2.7% ($7,000) 3.1% ($28,000) 3.1%
Other Public Safety ($8,000) 2.1% ($2,000) 1.8% ($4,000) 1.8% ($18,000) 2.0%
($384,000) 100.0% ($113,000) 100.0% ($227,000) 100.0% ($918,000) 100.0%
Net General Fund Impacts,
Before Sales Tax Rebate to
Regency $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Net General Fund Impacts,
After Rebate to Regency $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $243,000
Additional Other Revenues'
Gas Tax Fund $0 $0 $0 $36,000
Net General and Gas Tax
Fund Revenue, Before Rebate
to Regency $69,000 $535,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
Net General and Gas Tax
Fund Revenue,After Rebate
to Regency $69,000 $306,000 $1,024,000 $279,000
1 Table 6.
z Table 9.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 1 summ; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 2
Alternative Programs
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Development Program Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Residential Units 1
Condominiums, Wood Podium 160
Townhouses 160
Single Family Detached 80
400
Commercial Square Feet 1
Retail
Grocery 40,000
Restaurant 35,000 35,000
General 125,000 270,000 5,000
165,000 305,000 40,000
Office 400,000
Total Commercial 400,000 165,000 305,000 40,000
Site Acres 14.3 14.3 27.4 27.40
Commercial FAR 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.20
Dwelling Units per Acre 17.5
1 Project information per City staff and Green on Park Place Sponsor.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 2 program; 8/23/2013;J
Table 3
Alternatives Demographics
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Demographic Measure Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Residential Population
Condominiums 3.09 perHH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 486
Townhouses 3.09 per HH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 486
Single Family Detached 3.09 perHH 1 1.7% vacant 0 0 0 243
0 0 0 1,215
Commercial Employment
Retail
Grocery 350 sf/empl Z 0 114 0 0
Restaurant 200 sf/empl Z 0 0 175 175
General 350 sf/empl Z 0 357 771 14
0 471 946 189
Office 250 sf/empl Z 1,600 0 0 0
1,600 471 946 189
Resident Equivalents
Residents 1.00 perresident 0 0 0 1,215
Employees 0.33 per empl 533 157 315 63
533 157 315 1,278
1 U.S. Census 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
z KMA estimate based on past experience.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 3 proj demog; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 4
Estimated Assessed Value
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du/40k SF
Assessed Value Office Retail Retail Retail
unit price 1
Residential
Condominiums $672,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $107,520,000
Townhouses $630,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $100,800,000
Single Family Detached $780,000 /du $0 $0 $0 $62,400,000
$676,800 /du $0 $0 $0 $270,720,000
Commercial
Retail con. costs+land Z
Grocery $320 psf $0 $12,800,000 $0 $0
Restaurant $560 psf $0 $0 $19,600,000 $19,600,000
General $350 psf LO $43,750,000 $94,500,000 $1,750,000
$0 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $21,350,000
Office $350 psf $140,000,000 $0 $0 $0
$140,000,000 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $21,350,000
Total Assessed Value $140,000,000 $56,550,000 $114,100,000 $292,070,000
1 Based on unit price estimated provided by Green on Park Place sponsor.
z Appendix 3.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
Filename: \\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 4 AV; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 5
Existing Demographic Data-City of Dublin
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
City of
Demographic Measure Dublin
Population 1 44,208
Employment Z 20,540
Resident Equivalents 0.33 per employee 51,055
1
State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for
Cities,Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1,2012
and 2013. Sacramento,California, May 2013.
Adjusted based on U.S. Census 2010 Group Quarter/Correctional Facility
population:
Correctional Facility Population 5,682
z The Nielsen Company,2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 5 extg demog; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 6
Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue-General and Gas Tax Funds
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Revenue Source Estimating Factor 1 Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
Measure
Total Assessed Value($1,0005) z $140,000 $56,550 $114,100 $292,070
Residential Assessed Value($1,0005) z $0 $0 $0 $270,720
Commercial Assessed Value($1,0005) z $140,000 $56,550 $114,100 $21,350
Single Family Households 3 0 0 0 400
Retail Employees 4 0 471 946 189
Office Employees 4 1,600 0 0 0
General Retail Square Feet 3 0 125,000 270,000 5,000
Restaurant Square Feet 3 0 0 35,000 35,000
Grocery Retail Square Feet 3 0 40,000 0 0
Office Square Feet 3 400,000 0 0 0
Total Resident Equivalents 4 533 157 315 1,278
Total Residents 4 0 0 0 1,215
General Fund
Property Taxes 20.70% share of 1% prop. tax $289,756 $117,041 $236,151 $604,492
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $0.41 1$1,OOOAV $57,449 $23,205 $46,821 $119,850
Property Transfer Tax
Residential $0.55 1$1,OOOAV 20% per year $0 $0 $0 $29,779
Commercial $0.55 1$1,OOOAV 10% per year $7,700 $3,110 $6,276 $1,174
$7,700 $3,110 $6,276 $30,953
Sales Tax
Spending Measures
Non-Prof. Residential Spend per household $0 $0 $0 $31,764
Non-Prof. Retail Empl.Spend per employee $0 $900 $800 $950
Non-Proj. Office Empl.Spend per employee $3,657 $0 $0 $0
Project General Retail Sales persquare foot $270 $270 $270 $270
Project Restaurant Sales persquarefoot $495 $495 $495 $495
Project Grocery Taxable Sales per square foot $342 $342 $342 $342
Taxable Sales
Non-Proj. Residential Spend 98.3% occupied 4 $0 $0 $0 $12,489,416
Non-Proj. Retail Empl. Spend $0 $423,900 $756,800 $179,550
Non-Proj.Office Empl. Spend $5,850,880 $0 $0 $0
Project General Retail Sales $0 $33,750,000 $72,900,000 $1,350,000
Project Restaurant Sales $0 $0 $17,325,000 $17,325,000
Project Grocery Retail Sales LO $13,680,000 $0 LO
$5,850,880 $47,853,900 $90,981,800 $31,343,966
Total Sales Tax 1.00% sales tax $58,509 $478,539 $909,818 $313,440
Sales Tax Net of Sharing 5 $58,509 $250,000 $909,818 $313,440
Page 11
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;6 rev;8/23/2013;J
Table 6
Estimated Annual Alternatives Revenue-General and Gas Tax Funds
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Revenue Source Estimating Factor 1 Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
General Fund,continued
Business License Tax
Grocery Retail 1 store $50 perbus $0 $50 $0 $0
Restaurant Retail 5,000 sf per bus $50 perbus $0 $0 $350 $350
General Retail 3,500 sf per bus $50 perbus $0 $1,786 $3,857 $71
Office 10,000 sf per bus $50 perbus L19202 $0 L0 L0
$2,000 $1,836 $4,207 $421
Prop. 172 Sales Tax
Taxable Sales see sales tax calculations,above $5,850,880 $47,853,900 $90,981,800 $31,343,966
Tax 0.30 /$1,000 $1,755 $14,356 $27,295 $9,403
Franchise Fees $57.66 per res eq $30,733 $9,053 $18,163 $73,689
Licenses,Permits,and Fees $2.77 per res eq $1,477 $435 $873 $3,542
Fines/Forfeitures/Penalties $5.03 per res eq $2,682 $790 $1,585 $6,431
Total General Fund Revenue $452,060 $419,826 $1,251,188 $1,162,222
Gas Tax Fund $29.46 per resident $0 $0 $0 $35,799
Total General and Gas Tax Fund $452,060 $419,826 $1,251,188 $1,198,021
1 See Appendicies 4a,4b,4c,and 4d. 3 See Table 2.
2 See Table 4. 4 See Table 3.
5 The City of Dublin and Regency Centers have entered into an Agreement for Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax Revenue. Under the
agreement,if taxable sales exceed$50 M (annual City sales tax exceeds$500,000)and are not attributable to businesses relocated from
elsewhere in Dublin, Pleasanton,or Livermore,annual city sales taxes will be shared according to a set schedule approximating 50%/50%
sharing.Total cumulative sales tax shared is not to exceed$3.15 M over 10 years. KMA estimates that annual taxable sales will be
slightly less than the$50 million threshold under Alternative 2,generating approximately$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the
City. Because this amount is so close to the sharing threshold, in order to provide a conservative projection, it has been assumed that
sharing will tax place,and that net City sales tax revenues will be$250,000.
Page 12
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;6 rev;8/23/2013;jj
Table 7
Estimated Household Income
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Housing Expenditure Factor
Unit Value 1 $676,800
Mortgage Term Z 30 years
Interest Rate Z 5.5% /year
Down Payment Z 20% down
Annual Housing Payment $36,900 /year
Housing Expenditure %of Income Z 25% income
Annual Household Income $147,600
1 Table 4.
z Based on typical mortgage terms and housing expenditures in the
Bay Area with additional interest margin to allow for growth in
interest rates above current rates,which are at historically low levels.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 137 HH inc; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 8
General Fund Operating Expense Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Government $7,554,560 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
25% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$36.99 average cost per resident equivalent
Police $15,816,610 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$309.80 average cost per resident equivalent
Fire $11,107,860 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$217.57 average cost per resident equivalent
Other Public Safety $718,770 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$14.08 average cost per resident equivalent
Transportation $2,252,060 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
50% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$22.06 average cost per resident equivalent
Health and Welfare This department is operated on a cost recovery basis and generates
no net expenditures.
Culture and Leisure Services $6,478,070 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
75% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$95.16 average cost per resident equivalent
Community Development $2,316,220 net expenses in FY 2013/14 1
50% percent variable costs Z
51,055 resident equivalents 3
$22.68 average cost per resident equivalent
1 See Appendix 2.
z A portion of these General Fund expense categories is fixed,and does not vary regardless of the amount of development. The
estimated percent of variable costs is based on the experiences of other cities.
3 See Table 5.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 8 exp assumptns; 8/23/2013;jj
Table 9
Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Regency Centers Green on Park Place
Alt. 1 Alt.2 Alt. 1 Alt.2
400k SF 165k SF 305k SF 400 du
Expenditure Office Retail Retail 40k SF Ret
resident equivalents 1 533 157 315 1,278
Estimating Factor Z
General Government $36.99 per reseq $19,717 $5,808 $11,653 $47,276
Police $309.80 per reseq $165,122 $48,638 $97,586 $395,921
Fire $217.57 per reseq $115,964 $34,158 $68,534 $278,052
Other Public Safety $14.08 per res eq $7,504 $2,210 $4,435 $17,992
Transportation $22.06 per reseq $11,756 $3,463 $6,947 $28,187
Culture and Leisure Services $95.16 per reseq $50,722 $14,941 $29,977 $121,619
Community Development $22.68 per reseq $12,090 $3,561 $7,145 $28,990
Total General Fund Expenditures $382,875 $112,779 $226,277 $918,038
1 See Table 3.
z See Table 8.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13; 9 exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Included in the Analysis
Taxes
Current Property Taxes estimated development value,City sh.of 1%tax
Secured $18,203,730
Unsecured $1,164,000
Supplemental $450,000
$19,817,730
Prior Property Taxes
Secured $280,000
Unsecured $5,000
$285,000
In Lieu Property Tax $3,667,000 MVLF share from SOC
Property Tax Penalties $118,800
Property Transfer Tax $451,500 est.devel.value and turnover rate,City tax rate
Transient Occupancy Tax(Hotel) $875,000 est. project room nights and rates,City tax rate
Sales Tax est. project sales,empl.and resid.spending
Sales and Use Tax $11,475,000
In Lieu Sales Tax $3,825,000
$15,300,000
Franchise Taxes resident equivalents
Electric—Franchise Tax $463,500
Gas—Franchise Tax $105,300
Garbage—Franchise Tax $1,700,000
Cable—Franchise Tax $675,000
$2,943,800
Intergovernmental Revenues
Property Tax Relief(HOPTR) $183,620 included in the property taxes
$183,620
Licenses,Permits, Franchises
Business Licenses $139,000 City business license schedule
Business License Penalties $2,500 (originally under Fines, Forfeitures,and Penalties)
$141,500
Fines,Forfeitures,and Penalties resident equivalents
Other Court Fines $60,000
Parking Citations $52,910
$256,910
Total Revenue Included $44,040,860
Deducted from Service Costs
Licenses,Permits, Franchises
Police Licenses $19,380 deduct from Police Services
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Animal Licenses $5,600 deduct from Animal Control
Fire Permits $52,980 deduct from Fire Services
Planning Permits $52,740 deduct from Community Development Department
Building Permits $2,215,280 deduct from Community Development Department
Construction and Demo Permits $56,400 deduct from Community Development Department
Newspaper Rack Permits $3,240 deduct from Community Development Department
Encroachment/Transportation Permits $49,120 deduct from Engineering
Grading $3,280 deduct from Engineering
$2,458,020
Charges for Services
Police Charges for Services $60,730 deduct from Police Services
Fire Charges for Services $126,310 deduct from Fire Services
Waste Management Administration Fee $670,000 deduct from Waste Management
Sale of Documents $3,700 deduct from Administrative Services
Recreation&Community Services $1,727,160 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
Heritage&Cultural Arts $276,440 deduct from Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs
Local Share Permit Surcharge—Green Building $720 deduct from Community Development Department
Zoning/Planning $852,550 deduct from Community Development Department
Plan Checking—Building $2,600 deduct from Community Development Department
PlanChecking—Engineering $1,123,020 deduct from Engineering
Local Share Permit Surcharges—Zone 7/SMIP $10,900 deduct from Community Development Department
$4,854,130
Use of Money&Property
Field&Court Rentals $190,690 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
Facility Rentals $275,260 deduct from Parks and Community Services Programs
$465,950
Total Deducted from Service Costs $7,778,100
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 1
Summary of General Fund Revenue Sources'
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Revenue Category Budget Basis of KMA Projections
Excluded from the Analysis
Charges for Services
Building Use Insurance $16,000
Santa Rita Services $820,000
$836,000
Use of Money&Property independent of project
Interest $652,160
Leased Property $64,800
$716,960
Other Revenues
Reimbursement,General $24,570
Reimbursement, Damage $19,370
Community Benefit Payments $1,488,050
Contributions/Donations/Sponsorships $67,650
Miscellaneous Revenue $53,080
$1,652,720
Total Excluded $3,205,680
TOTAL—GENERAL FUND $55,024,640
For funding City departmental services
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-1 budget rev;8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
General Government
City Council $382,900
City Manager/City Clerk $1,372,890
Elections $3,120
Central Services/ Human Services $511,230
Insurance $1,018,660
Legal Services $715,930
Administrative Services $2,228,520
(Less) Sale of Documents ($3,700)
$2,224,820
Building Management $853,130
Non-Departmental $471,880
Total General Government $7,558,260
Net General Government $7,554,560
Public Safety
Police Services $15,896,720
(Less) Police Licenses ($19,380)
(Less) Police Charges for Services ($60,730)
($80,110)
$15,816,610
Fire Services $11,287,150
(Less) Fire Permits ($52,980)
(Less) Fire Charges for Services ($126,310)
($179,290)
$11,107,860
Disaster Preparedness $171,950
Crossing Guards $111,890
Animal Control $416,410
(Less)Animal Licenses ($5,600)
$410,810
Traffic Signals and Street Lighting $24,120
Total Public Safety $27,908,240
Net Public Safety $27,643,240
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
Transportation
Public Works Administration $958,870
Street Maintenance $20,770
Street Sweeping $162,470
Street Landscape Maintenance $980,130
Street Tree Maintenance $129,820
Total Transportation $2,252,060
Net Transportation $2,252,060
Health and Welfare
Waste Management $159,840
(Less)Waste Management Administration Fee ($670,000)
($510,160)
Environmental Programs $233,940
Social Services $196,480
Housing Programs $210
Total Health and Welfare $590,470
Net Health and Welfare ($79,530)
Culture and Leisure Services
Community Cable Television $87,150
Library Services $579,420
Park Maintenance $2,775,830
Heritage and Cultural Arts Programs $1,003,310
(Less) Heritage &Cultural Arts ($276,440)
$726,870
Parks and Community Services Programs $4,138,060
(Less) Recreation &Community Services ($1,727,160)
(Less) Field &Court Rentals ($190,690)
(Less) Facility Rentals ($275,260)
($2,193,110)
$1,944,950
Park and Facility Development $363,850
Total Culture and Leisure Services $8,947,620
Net Culture and Leisure Services $6,478,070
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 2
Summary of General Fund Budget Expenditures 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Forecast
FY 2013-2014
Expenditure Category Budget
Community Development
Community Development Department $4,150,790
(Less) Planning Permits ($52,740)
(Less) Building Permits ($2,215,280)
(Less) Construction and Demo Permits ($56,400)
(Less) Newspaper Rack Permits ($3,240)
(Less) Local Share Permit Surcharge—Green Building ($720)
(Less)Zoning/ Planning ($852,550)
(Less) Plan Checking—Building ($2,600)
(Less) Local Share Permit Surcharges—Zone 7/SMIP ($10,900)
($3,194,430)
$956,360
Engineering $1,892,540
(Less) Encroachment/Transportation Permits ($49,120)
(Less) Grading ($3,280)
(Less) Plan Checking—Engineering ($1,123,020)
($1,175,420)
$717,120
Economic Development and Public Information $642,740
Total Community Development $6,686,070
Net Community Development $2,316,220
Total Operating Expenditures $53,942,720
Appropriations to Reserves $58,289
Total General Fund Expenditures $54,001,009
Expenditures Net of Off-Setting Revenues $46,222,909
Cost recovery items(negative amounts)are from revenue items listed on Table A-1.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-2 budget exp; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 3
Commercial Construction Cost/Assessed Valuation Estimates
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21,2013
General
Commercial Cost Element Grocery Retail Office Restaurant
Construction Costs 1 $170.00 $200.00 $300.00 $405.00
Land Cost
Cost per Square Foot of Land 2 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00
Floor Area Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.64 0.20
Land Cost per Building Square Foot $150.00 $150.00 $46.72 $150.00
Est.Assessed Valuation, Per GBA $320.00 $350.00 $350.00 $560.00
1 Marshall &Swift Valuation Service.
z KMA estimate.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-3 M&S cost; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
10.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
0.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$31,764 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
0% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$1,000 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
0% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,657 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Restaurant $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable sales, restaurant space PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 24
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4a
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 1
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 25
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\1 1982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4a rev assumptns-regency 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
City Sales Tax 1.00% of taxable sales less rebate to Regency Centers6
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 7
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 8
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 9
5.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$30,175 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
10% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$900 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee i0
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
10% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,291 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 11
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 12
6% average allocation to cities 12
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 13
51,055 resident equivalents 14
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 15
44,208 residents 14
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 27
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4b
Revenue Source Assumptions-Regency Centers Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e The City of Dublin and Regency Centers have entered into an Agreement for Reimbursement of Sales and Use Tax
Revenue. Under the agreement, if taxable sales exceed$50 M (annual City sales tax exceeds$500,000 and are not
attributable to businesses relocated from elsewhere in Dublin, Pleasanton,or Livermore),a portion of annual city sales
taxes will be rebated according to a set schedule approximating 50%/50%sharing.Total cumulative sales tax rebated
cannot exceed$3.15 M over 10 years. KMA estimates that annual taxable sales will be slightly less than the$50 million
threshold under Alternative 2,generating approximately$479,000 of annual sales tax revenues to the City.Since the
projection is close to the threshold,to be conservative it has been assumed that sharing will occur,and that net City sales
tax revenues will be$250,000 rather than $479,000.
See Table 7.
$ State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
9 Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
10 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
11 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
1z Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
13 See Appendix 1.
14 See Table 5.
11 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 28
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4b rev assumptns-regency 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.000% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
10.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$28,587 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
20% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$800 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
20% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$2,925 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 30
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4c
Revenue Source Assumptions
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 31
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4c rev assumptns-GOPP 1; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund
Property Tax 1% property tax assessment
20.70% City share of property tax allocation post-ERAF 1
Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $2,278,846 property tax based revenues 2004-05 2,3
$5,553,452,954 2004-05 Dublin gross AV 2,3
$0.41 per$1,000 in AV growth
Property Transfer Tax $0.55/$1,000 AV City transfer tax rate 4
20.00% estimated annual ownership residential turnover 5
5.00% estimated annual commercial turnover 5
Sales Tax 1.000% of taxable sales
Resident Retail Spending $147,600 estimated household income 6
26.9% income spent on taxable sales in Bay Area 7
80.0% Dublin caputure rate 8
2.0% Dublin spending within the project 5
$31,128 annual other Dublin spending per owner household
Retail Employee Retail Spending $25.00 potential weekly spending per employee 5
50 weeks at work per year 5
$1,250 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
5% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$950 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Office Employee Retail Spending $91.42 potential weekly spending per employee 9
50 weeks at work per year 5
$4,571 annual spending per employee
80% Dublin capture 5
5% employee Dublin spending within the project 5
$3,474 annual other Dublin spending per employee
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 32
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
General Fund,continued
Sales Tax, continued
General Retail $375 total sales PSF 5
80% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$270 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Restaurant Retail $550 total sales PSF 5
100% taxable sales 5
10% vacany rate 5
$495 total taxable general retail sales PSF
Grocery Retail $854 total sales PSF 10
40% percent taxable 5
$342 total taxable grocery sales PSF
Business License Tax $50 per business 4
1 grocery store
3,500 sf per business for general retail 5
10,000 sf per business for office building 5
Prop. 172 Sales Tax $0.005 statewide 1/2 cent sales tax 11
6% average allocation to cities 11
$0.300 Dublin revenue per$1,000 spent
Franchise Fees $2,943,800 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$57.66 per resident equivalent
Licenses, Permits, and Fees $141,500 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$2.77 per resident equivalent
Fines/ Forfeitures/ Penalties $256,910 citywide revenues in FY 2013/14 12
51,055 resident equivalents 13
$5.03 per resident equivalent
Other Revenue
Gas Tax Fund $1,302,550 revenues in FY 2013/14 14
44,208 residents 13
$29.46 per resident
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 33
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
Appendix 4d
Revenue Source Assumptions-Green on Park Place Alternative 2
Regency Centers and Green on Park Place Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dublin,CA August 21, 2013
Notes:
1 Alameda County Auditor-Controller Agency Tax Analysis Property Reports,51322AABB Calculation of Revenue
Percentages in Tax Rate Areas (County website).
z Per SB 1096,growth of property tax in lieu of VLF is proportional to growth in AV since 2004/05. Before 2004/05,VLF
was distributed in proportion to population.
3 2004/05 VLF distribution per the California State Controller's Office.
4 Per Dublin Municipal Code.
s KMA assumption.
e See Table 7.
State Board of Equalization Taxable Sales in California Report by Type of Business for Cities and Counties,2011; US
Census,American Community Survey,2007-2011 5-Year Estimates.
$ Estimate based on CA Board of Equalization taxable sales and household spending potential.
9 Based on employee food and goods and services spending in the vicinity of the office,as reported in the ICSC report,
"Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age" (2012),for suburban workers.
10 Supermarkets Industry Statistical Data-by U.S. Business Reporter FY 2011. Data used are for similar stores to those
anticipated at the site.
11 Per California City Finance website-The Proposition 172 1/2 Cent Sales Tax: Background for League of California
Cities 2005 Annual Conference Resolution#7.
lz See Appendix 1.
13 See Table 5.
14 Per City of Dublin 2013-2014 Operating Budget.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 34
Filename:\\Sf-fs2\wp\11\11982\005\fiscal 08 21 13;A-4d rev assumptns-GOPP 2; 8/23/2013;jj
RESOLUTION NO. XX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
************************
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
(PLPA-2013-00013)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be
made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are
consistent with the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses on the site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for
the project site is proposed to be amended from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable
the construction of retail/restaurant uses in addition to Medium-High Density Residential uses
coordinated in a master-planned development on one project site. In addition, other provisions
of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to ensure
consistency with the proposed land use designation for this 27.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated May 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from May 7, 2014 to June 23, 2014 (45 days)
for public comment; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated August 2014 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
1
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council approve the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 4, 2014 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments on November 4, 2014, at which
time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution -14 certifying
The Green Mixed Use Project Supplemental EIR and adopting CEQA mitigation findings and a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the certified SEIR and all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony prior to taking action on The Green Mixed Use Project
and considered the previous CEQA approvals for the other three projects ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment and considered the Staff
Report and all reports, recommendations, and testimony referenced above prior to approving
the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments related to The Green Mixed Use Project are in the
public interest and that the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended,
will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended, is
consistent with the General Plan, as amended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the General Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project-
2
Figure 1-1 (Land Use exhibit) shall be amended to reflect the change in land use designation
from General Commercial to Mixed Use for The Green Mixed Use project site.
Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area) shall be
amended as shown below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 2.2: Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning Area
Classification Acres Intensity" Units Factor Yield
RESIDENTIAL Du's/acre Du's Persons/du Population
High Density 56.14 25.1+ 1,409+ 2.7 3,804+
Medium-High Density 137.81 14.1-25.0 1,943-3,445 2.7 5,246-9,302
Medium-High Density and 0 14.1-25.0 0 2.7 0
Retail/Office
Medium Density 390.11 6.1-14.0 2,380-5,462 2.7 6,426-14,747
Single Family 725 0.9-6.0 652-4,350 2.7 1,760-11,745
Estate Residential 30.5 0.01-0.8 0-24 2.7 0-65
Rural Residential/Agriculture 340.2 0.01 3 2.7 8
TOTAL 1679.76 6,387-14,693 17,244-39,671+
Floor Square Feet Square
COMMERCIAL Acres Area (millions) Feet/ Jobs
Ratio Employee
(Gross)
General Commercial 271.6 .20-.60 2.37-7.10 510 4,647-13,922
General Commercial/Campus Office 95.22 .20-.80 .83-3.32 385 2,155-7,325
Mixed Use 38.8 .30-1.00 .51-1.70 490 1,041-3,469
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office 22.9 .45 max .45 260 1,731
Neighborhood Commercial 21.29 .25-.60 .23-.56 490 470-1,143
Campus Office 195.58 .25-.80 2.13-6.82 260 8,192-26,214
Industrial Park 56.4 .35 max .86 590 1,458
Industrial Park/Campus Office 0 .25-.35 0 425 0
TOTAL: 701.79 7.38-20.81 19,694-55,262
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC/OPEN FAR Square Feet Square
SPACE Acres (Gross) (millions) Feet/ Jobs
employee
Public/Semi-Public 94.1 .50 max 2.05 590 3475
Semi-Public 3.2 .50 max .07 590 119
Acres Number
Parks/Public Recreation 196.3
Regional Parks 1.2 1
Open Space 699.56
FAR Square Feet Square
Schools Acres (Gross) (millions) Feet/ Jobs
employee
Elementary School 48.7 .50 max 1.06 590 1797
Middle School 27.8 .50 max .61 590 1034
High School 0
TOTAL: 1070.86 3.79 6425
Dwelling Square
Acres Units Population Feet Jobs
(millions)
GRAND TOTAL: 3,45.41 6,387- 17,244- 11.17-24.6 26,119-61,687
14,693 39,671+
3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the amendments to
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with the Dublin General Plan as amended
because the amendments conform to match the amendments made to the General Plan land
use designations for each project site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the following
amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project:
Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) shall be amended as shown below
(table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.1
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY
(Amended Per Resolution Nos. 66-03, 47-04, 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 210-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13,
19-14, 159-14, and xx-14)
Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
General Commercial 329.3 acres .25-.35 FAR 3.817 MSF
General Commercial/Campus Office 87.02 acres .28 FAR 1.054 MSF
Industrial Park* 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 57.89 acres .30-.35 FAR .812 MSF
Mixed Use 32.1 acres .30-1.0 FAR .045 MSF
Mixed Use 2/Campus Office***** 25.33 acres .45 FAR .497 MSF
Campus Office 153.01 acres .35-.75 FAR 2.986 MSF
Subtotal 745.95 acres 9.958 MSF
RESIDENTIAL
High Density 58.74 acres 35 du/ac 2,056 du
Medium High Density 156.61 acres 20 du/ac 3,132 du
Medium Density** 477.41 acres 10 du/ac 4,744 du
Single Family**** 947.25 acres 4 du/ac 3,789 du
Estate Residential 30.4 acres 0.13 du/ac 4 du
Rural Residential/Agric. 549.95 acres .01 du/ac 5 du
Mixed Use 32.1 acres*** 515 du
Subtotal 2220.36 acres 14,245 du
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public 93.1 acres .24 FAR .973 MSF
Semi-Public 10.5 acres .25 FAR
Subtotal 103.6 acres .973 MSF
SCHOOLS
Elementary School 66.5 acres 5 schools
Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school
Subtotal 87.8 acres
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
City Park 56.3 acres 1 park
Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks
Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks
Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks
Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks
Open Space 684.06 acres
TOTAL LAND AREA 4060.77 acres
4
Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) shall be
amended as shown below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.2
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY
Amended Per Resolution No.47-04,223-05, 58-07,37-08, 176-09, 76-10,55-12,92-12,210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14,xx-14
Land Use Designation Development Sq Ft/ Persons/du Population
Employees
Commercial
Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266
General 1.054 MSF 385 2,738
Commercial/Campus
Office*
General Commercial 3.817 MSF 510 7,484
Neighborhood .812 MSF 490 1,657
Commercial
Mixed Use** .045 MSF 490 92
Mixed Use 2/Campus .497 MSF 260 1,910
Office****
Campus Office 2.986 MSF 260 11,485
Public/Semi Public .973 MSF 590 1,740
Semi-Public 590
TOTAL: 10.931 MSF 28,372
Residential
High Density 2,056 2.0 4,112
Medium High Density 3,132 2.0 6,264
Medium Density 4,744 2.0 9,488
Single Family*** 3,789 3.2 12,125
Estate Residential 4 3.2 13
Mixed Use** 515 2.0 1,030
Rural Residential/Agric. 5 3.2 16
TOTAL: 1 14,245 1 1 1 33,048
Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) shall be amended as shown below (table footnotes
not included):
TABLE 4.3
CITY OF DUBLIN
PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE
(Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, 37-08, 176-09, 76-10, 55-12, 92-12, 210-12, 198-13, 19-14, 159-14, xx-14)
PLANNING Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio
AREA Units Residents
Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.02:1.0
Dublin
Eastern Dublin 14,245 28,372 20,244 -8,128 1.40:1.0
Specific Plan
Area
TOTAL: 21,345 40,582 32,244 -8,338 1.26:1.0
5
Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential) shall be amended as shown
below (table footnotes not included):
TABLE 4.11
HACIENDA GATEWAY
SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
(Amended Per Resolution 47-04, 198-13, 159-14, xx-14)
Designation Acres Density DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
General Commercial 85.8 .21 FAR .800 MSF
General Commercial 0 .38 FAR --
General Commercial/Campus Office 14.32 .27 FAR .167 MSF
Neighborhood Commercial 0.0 .30 FAR --
Campus Office 50.68 .37 FAR .817 MSF
Campus Office 19.0 .50 FAR .420 MSF
Campus Office 30.2 0.85 FAR 1.119 MSF
Mixed Use 27.5 .30-1.0 .359 MSF
FAR
Commercial Subtotal 227.5 3.682 MSF
Medium High Density Residential 16.2 20 du/ac 324 du
Residential Subtotal 16.2 324 du
Semi-Public -- -- 0 MSF
Total 243.7 3.682 MSF and 324 du
Appendix 4 of the EDSP (Land Use Summary by Land Owners) shall be amended to reflect the
changes in land use designations broken down by property owner.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall not take effect until the
Development Agreement for The Green Mixed Use Project takes effect and is recorded on the
Property.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
6
ORDINANCE NO. xx — 14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TO REZONE 27.5 ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires rezoning the Project properties
to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve rezoning the Project properties to a new Planned
Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan,
which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during
normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 4, 2014 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development
Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
1
Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the proposed rezoning of the Project properties to a new Planned Development Zoning
District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, on September 16,
2014, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on , the City Council adopted Resolution -14
certifying The Green Mixed Use Project Final SEIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final SEIR and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Findings
A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows.
1. The Green Mixed Use Project ("the Project") PD-Planned Development zoning meets
the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 in that it provides a comprehensive development
plan that creates a desirable use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by
virtue of the layout and design of the site plan.
2. Development of The Green Mixed Use Project under the PD-Planned Development
zoning will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the
surrounding area in that the site will provide new retail, restaurant, and residential units in
an area that has similar uses nearby and is also adjacent to existing and future
workplaces and residential neighborhoods.
B. Pursuant to Sections 8.120.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds
as follows.
1. The PD-Planned Development zoning for The Green Mixed Use Project will be
harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in the surrounding
area in that the proposed Site Plan has taken into account sensitive adjacencies and will
provide a wide range of amenities to the surrounding neighborhoods.
2. The project site conditions were documented in the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) that has been prepared, and the environmental impacts that have
been identified will be mitigated to the greatest degree possible. There are no site
challenges that were identified in the SEIR that will present an impediment to utilization of
the site for the intended purposes. There are no major physical or topographic
constraints and thus the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the retail
commercial center approved through the PD zoning.
2
3. With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures identified in the SEIR, the PD-
Planned Development zoning will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare in that the project will comply with all applicable development regulations and
standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures.
4. The PD-Planned Development zoning is consistent with and in conformance with the
Dublin General Plan, as amended, in that the proposed use as a future mixed use
commercial/residential project is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation for
the site.
C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council certified a Final
Supplemental EIR via Resolution -14 on prior to approving the Project.
SECTION 2:
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning
Map is amended to rezone the property described below to a Planned Development Zoning
District:
Approximately 27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way. APNs 986-0033-004-00,
986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00.
("the Property"). A map of the rezoning area is shown below:
0
y
a IIIIIIIIIIU
I ��tititiY wun �Q�Vo ��
4171��1r��1� it Ul.,,,,inm)1Sb �k �lltitiVllVV wio �� ivu I
i
3
SECTION 3.
The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are
set forth in the following Stage 1/2 Development Plan for the Project area, which is hereby
approved. Any amendments to the Stage 1/2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with
section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors.
Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project
This is a Stage 1/2 Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
This Development Plan meets all the requirements for both a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development
Plan and is adopted as part of the PD-Planned Development rezoning for The Green Mixed Use
Project, PLPA-2013-00013.
The PD-Planned Development Zoning District and this Stage 1/2 Development Plan provides
flexibility to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and
action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance
are satisfied.
1. Zoning. The Zoning for the subject property is PD-Planned Development (PLPA-2013-
00013).
2. Statement of Permitted Uses for the Commercial Parcel (Lot 61 of Tract 8203 —
Sheet TM2.01).
Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• General outdoor seating areas (plaza seating areas, benches, chairs, cafe tables) not
dedicated to a specific user are permitted throughout the project area in any location.
• Retail-General and Retail-Neighborhood use types
• Offices - Professional/Administrative
• Personal Services
• Eating, drinking and entertainment establishments including the following:
• Eating and Drinking Establishments, including the following:
o Eating and Drinking Establishment
• Eating and Drinking Establishment— Specialty
• Eating and Drinking Establishment— Take Out
• Outdoor Dining Areas (supplemental to an existing indoor restaurant) are permitted
as identified on the Site Plan (Sheet A1.0.1 of the Project Plans). Outdoor Dining
Area is defined as a controlled outdoor dining space (not enclosed in a building,
but enclosed with a fence or barrier), which is supplemental to an indoor
restaurant and dedicated to the use of a single tenant or tenants. Additional
Outdoor Dining Areas may be permitted through a Site Development Review
Waiver
Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and/or Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit (as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Community Facility
• Recreational Facility— Indoor
• Daycare Center
• Community Care Facility (Large)
• Nightclub
4
Prohibited Uses:
o Drive through facilities
Statement of Permitted Uses for the Residential Parcels (Lots 1-60 and Lots A-II of
Tract 8203 — Sheet TM2.01).
Permitted Uses (as defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Single-Family Residence
• Multi-Family Residence
• Family Day Care Home/Small (up to 8 children)
• Home Occupation
Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and/or Zoning Clearance/Minor Use Permit (as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance):
• Community Care Facility (Small)
• Community Clubhouse
• Community Facility
• Day Care Center
Prohibited Uses:
o Any use not specifically noted above and determined by the Community Development
Director to be incompatible with residential uses on the project site
3. Stage 1 and 2 Site Plan.
The Stage 1/2 Development Plan is shown below and is also included as Sheet L1.0 in
the Project Plan Set, dated received August 11, 2014, on file at the Community
Development Department.
4 E
J.L
" ' yI i' q uutl�k i aIJrxJ4G� rr
w r
u
, r
S Ipiv
caps � � � v'd ' !PrassitaYerMail6o��, /y ,
NMI -
ena' ardena Interior GreenwaY 3c3Clal erdeh5
d VY �I 1J Vt13 t1I11111a1y tdlhgi41I fl41$ 19 i1 II IIYl71byV1 1@Ili1i1111UI1uU"'1 imJIla 11
„F'adebtn3p Hecrea2rnn 7frail tp BAPoT B 8 tall tsnde add ha
/i////2tYV Y7 X34 aptl '
5
4. Site area, proposed densities, and development regulations.
Maximum Building Height: 50 feet
Signage Pursuant to an approved Master Sign Program
Minimum lot size Per approved Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM2.01 of the
Project Plans)
Maximum lot coverage Per approved Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM2.01 of the
Project Plans)
Maximum Building Area 40,000 square feet of enclosed commercial building area on
the Commercial Parcel and up to 400 units on the Residential
Parcels.
Maximum Floor Area .25 for the Commercial Parcel
Ratio/Density 19 units/net acre for the combined Residential Parcels
(maximum of 400 units over 21.7 net residential acres)
Parking Stall Dimensions Per Chapter 8.76 Off-Street Parking And Loading Regulations
Standards of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
Minimum Setbacks Per the Civil Site Plan (Sheet C1.01 of the Project Plans)
Parking Spaces Required
Commercial Uses Use Type Parking Req'd
Eating and 1 space per 100 s.f. accessible to
Drinking Est. customers, plus
1 space per 300 s.f. not accessible to
customers
Outdoor Dining 1-12 seats: no parking required.
13 or more seats: 1 space per 3 seats.
Eating and 1 space per 200 s.f.
Drinking Est. —
Specialty
Retail 1 space per 300 s.f.
Residential Uses 2 garage spaces per unit, plus
0.8 guest spaces per unit (Excess parking on commercial
parcels may be used to satisfy guest parking requirement)
5. Phasing Plan. In accordance with the Project Development Agreement.
6. Preliminary Landscape Plan. Sheets L.1 through L.14, inclusive, of the Project Plans
illustrate the conceptual landscape design.
7. Architectural Standards. The conceptual architectural design of the project shall reflect
the following standards as illustrated in the Project Plans. The architectural design shall:
■ Offer a modern interpretation of agrarian vernacular architecture that had a place in the
Tri-Valley in the early- to mid- 20th century. The design aesthetic of this community is
intended to be a welcomed counterpoint to other more traditionally suburban Dublin
communities.
• Utilize authentic and rich materials that are utilized and employed to express themselves
in their natural state, including emphasis on the use of metal and wood as the main
building forms. The use of stucco should be understated. Siding should be expressed in
hues that allow the texture and scale to read. Color should only be used as an accent and
not used to mask the quality of the materials proposed.
6
• Highlight the natural richness in the material palette that in turn, allows the color palette
for the bodies of the buildings to be refined and sophisticated.
• Utilize accent colors purposefully on elements such as Art, Entries, Accent Panels,
Accent Trims, and Signage.
• Incorporate features such as different wall planes, heights, wall textures, roof elements,
storefront designs, awnings, canopies, trellises, signs, light fixtures and landscaping to
contribute layers of detail at the pedestrian level.
• Provide functional outdoor plazas where people will gather and socialize, with
landscaping, outdoor seating, enhanced paving treatment, and other features to provide
an appropriate urban scale for the center.
8. Consistency with General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended).
9. Inclusionary Zoning Regulations. In accordance with the Project Development
Agreement.
10.Aerial Photo. An aerial photo is on file with the Community Development Department.
11.Applicable Requirements of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Except as specifically
provided in this Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan or the Project Development
Agreement, the use, development, improvement and maintenance of the Commercial
Parcel of the project site shall be governed by the C-2 (General Commercial Zoning
District) provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 8.32.060.C. The
use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Residential Parcels of the
project site shall be governed by the R-M (Multi-Family Residential Zoning District)
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. No development shall occur on either the
Commercial or Residential parcels on this property until a Site Development Review
permit has been approved.
12.Compliance with adopted Mitigation Measures. The Applicant/Developer shall comply
with all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment EIR and The Green Mixed Use Project
Supplemental EIR.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3)
public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
SECTION 5. Prior PD Zoning Superseded.
Ordinance No. 34-08 establishing the existing Planned Development Zoning District is
superseded as to the Project site.
7
SECTION 6.
This ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from and after its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of 2014, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDICC 09.16.141Attxx-CC PD Ord.docx
8
RESOLUTION NO. xx-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the current request includes Vesting Tentative Map 8203 to subdivide the
entire 27.5 acre parcel, however, the proposed Site Development Review is only for the
commercial component of the project. The Site Development Review application for the
residential buildings is not being considered at this time and will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a later date; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building
elevations for the eight future Commercial Buildings on the project site, which comprise
approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail and restaurant buildings with associated
outdoor seating areas, which are permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans also illustrate the proposed subdivision of a single 27.5
acre parcel into 96 separate parcels (1 commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels, and 35 parcels
for future streets, parking, and common areas, ranging in size from 0.1 acres to 5.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting
Tentative Map application collectively defines this "Project" and is available and on file in the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Rezoning of properties to a new
Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-50
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement for the
Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said application on November
47 2014 for this project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve
the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting Tentative Map
application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution xx-14, certifying
The Green Mixed Use Project Final SEIR and adopting CEQA findings, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
and
2
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Final SEIR and all above-referenced reports,
recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) findings and
determinations regarding The Green Mixed Use Project on approximately 27.5 acres at 5144
and 5344 Martinelli Way:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific
Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive
and harmonious development compatible with the site's environmental constraints
and with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The development gives
thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and
theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic
impact. It complies with development regulations and the requirements of the zoning
district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the
project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials
and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan; 3) the
project will provide unique, varied, and distinct commercial opportunities, which will
serve to activate the area and provide services to existing and future residents and
workers in the vicinity; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and
allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning as required by Section
8.104.020.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 5) the project includes streetscape
enhancements to complement those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because:
1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because: 1) The
architecture and landscape design for the project provides a unique, yet appropriate,
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
3
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because: 1) the project will provide the desired mix of retail stores, eating and
drinking establishments, and associated uses that conform to the Mixed Use land use
designation of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended); 2) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and
is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to
support the uses; and 3) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended).
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
project site is relatively flat; 2) the major roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the
site already exists, and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will
enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in
accordance with City policies and regulations.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because: 1) the architectural style and materials will be
unique to this project, yet compatible and complementary to the contemporary
architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial projects in
the City; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-
quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similar to other
retail commercial shopping centers in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g.
waste facilities, parking lots) shall be screened with appropriate materials that are
architecturally compatible with the building design.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because: 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes
the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include generous
sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and
pedestrian-scaled lighting; 2) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking
fields both at the front and rear of the project buildings; and 3) the project perimeter
and interior landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the
vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
4
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because: 1) all infrastructure including driveways,
pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with
City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-
modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major
public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of
these facilities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
make the following Vesting Tentative Map findings and determinations regarding Vesting
Tentative Map 8203 for The Green Mixed Use Project:
A. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Map 8203 are consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses,
and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is the subdivision of three
parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre
commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple units in each building/parcel,
and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels.
C. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the General Provisions and
Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for The Green
Mixed Use Project (PLPA-2013-00013), and therefore is consistent with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Hacienda Drive,
Martinelli Way, and Arnold Road, on approximately 27.5± acres of land. The
topography of the property is generally flat. The site is physically suitable for the type
and intensity of the proposed commercial/residential mixed use development that is
proposed.
E. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 will not cause environmental damage or substantially
injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns because the
proposed project is for the subdivision of the land and not for any physical
improvements.
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The
City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby
approve Vesting Tentative Map 8203 and Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings
only) for The Green Mixed Use Project, as shown on plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV,
stamped received August 11, 2014, subject to the conditions included below.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
5
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police,
[PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney,
[FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. Anything to the
contrary in these Conditions of Approval notwithstanding, if the City enters into a Development
Agreement with the project sponsor, if any term of these conditions of approval are in conflict
with the provisions of the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement shall take
precedence and shall control.
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
GENERAL CONDITIONS — SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
1. Approval. This Site Development Review (Commercial only) and PL Ongoing
Vesting Tentative Map 8203 approval for The Green Mixed Use
Project establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for
the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval generally shall
conform to the project plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV dated
received August 11, 2014 and on file in the Community Development
Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams — including the
color and material board — relating to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval, unless modified
by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site Development PL One year After
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval shall be valid for one (1) Effective Date
year from the approval of the project by the Planning Commission or or as specified
as identified in the project Development Agreement. This approval in the Project
shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be Development
established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use Agreement
means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or,
demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If
there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may
hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a
determination may be processed concurrently with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a
new application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of this Ordinance.
3. Time Extension. Unless otherwise addressed in the Project PL One Year
Development Agreement, the original approving decision-maker Following
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of Expiration
approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Date
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings
of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the
approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Subsequent six
month extensions may be granted at the discretion of the
Community Development Director. All time extension requests shall
be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original
hearing body.
4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in PL On-going
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development
Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified
6
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
may be subject to enforcement action.
5. Effective Date. The approval is contingent on the City Council PL Ongoing
taking the following actions related to the project:
1. Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the
project;
2. Adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project;
3. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
for the project; and
4. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for
the project.
If the above actions do not take place, the SDR/Tentative Map
approval is null and void.
This approval shall not take effect until all the City Council approvals
under items 1-4 are in full force and effect.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review/Vesting PL On-going
Tentative Map approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Various Building
Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Permit
Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Issuance
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon
Services District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Building
other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Permit
Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Issuance
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law.
Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works
Department.
9. Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Development Various Building
Agreement, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Permit
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not Issuance
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities
Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
may be adopted and applicable.
10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold ADM On-going
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee,
or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty
to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer
without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make
minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project.
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean- PL On-going
up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean,
and litter-free site.
13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development PL On-going
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104
of the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance.
14. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric, cultural, or historic artifacts PL During
be exposed during excavation and construction operations, the Construction
Department of Community Development shall be notified and work
shall cease immediately until an archaeologist, who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA), is consulted to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures,
if deemed necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking construction
activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds
and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in
Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines. Compliance with this condition required
throughout construction.
15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or PL Building
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by Permit
landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted Issuance
equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view and
by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the Through
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Completion/
Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening On-going
for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
16. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to satisfy the City's PL, Parks Public Art Plan
requirement for Public Art through the installation of art pieces on the shall be
project site, which could potentially also include installations on the developed
Persimmon Place project site (north of Martinelli Way). The prior to
Applicant/Developer will coordinate the public art project for the issuance of
project with the City's Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager in the first
compliance with Chapter 8.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. Building
Permit and all
installations
shall be
complete prior
to occupancy
of the first
building on the
project site
17. Inclusionary Housing. The Applicant/Developer will satisfy the PL In accordance
requirements of Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance (Inclusionary with the
Zoning Regulations) in accordance with the Project Development Project
Agreement. Development
Agreement
18. Colors. The exterior colors of the buildings shall be in compliance PL Occupancy
with the Color and Material Board approved with the Project Plans.
If paint is utilized, the Applicant shall paint small portions of the
building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development prior to painting the entire buildings,
whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
19. Approval of Design Details Prior to Full Installation. Details of PL Building or
the following site features and improvements shall be reviewed and Sitework
approved by the Community Development Director prior to permit Permit
issuance: Issuance
1. Amenities to be installed in the plaza/outdoor spaces next to
and between buildings (e.g. on the north side of Building 400)
that are intended to create a comfortable pedestrian
environment. Amenities could be hanging lights, additional
landscaping, or other art/design elements that serve to frame
and enclose the space.
2. Bollard/post element to be installed on the northern edge of the
commercial area along Martinelli and a portion of Hacienda.
3. Bicycle lockers and bike racks.
4. Paving pattern, colors, material for pedestrian pathways on
sidewalks, through the parking areas, and in the commercial
and residential plaza areas.
5. Enclosure details for outdoor dining/seating areas.
6. Construction and material details for trash enclosures.
20. Outdoor Furniture. Outdoor furniture (including tables and chairs PL Ongoing
for outdoor seating/eating areas) shall be suitable for all-weather
conditions and made of high-quality, durable materials. Umbrellas
shall have no more than two colors. Logos, or the name of the
restaurant establishment, may be printed on the umbrella canvas,
but logos for products sold are prohibited.
21. Outdoor Dining/Seating Areas. Outdoor dining/seating areas not PL Ongoing
shown on the Project Plans may be permitted through a Site
Development Review Waiver. Outdoor dining/seating areas shown
on the Project Plans do not need any additional review/approval
9
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
except approval of any enclosure details. Outdoor dining/seating
areas (including furniture and barriers/enclosures) shall be
maintained in good condition at all times by the owners/operators of
the associated dining establishment or the retail center property
management.
22. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program will be reviewed PL Installation of
and approved at the Staff-level for all project-related signage any project-
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs, community related
identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage
signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other
signage deemed necessary by the City. Any wall and monument
signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only
and the full details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall
be shown in the separate sign package.
23. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a PL Establishment
Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction of the
trailer, storage shed, or container units on the project site. temporary use
24. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewed and PL Issuance of
approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to Building
the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: Permits
a. That standard non-residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other
appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided
throughout the site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking
stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto
adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct
offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning
condensers, are architecturally screened from view, and that
electrical transformers are either underground, architecturally
screened, or screened by landscape of an adequate size.
Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatest
degree possible.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted
to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the
Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed
or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect
the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin
Community Development Department for approval.
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not
detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in
harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall
wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall
plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project
10
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and
that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
25. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall PL On-going
comply with The Green Mixed Use Project Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council
Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs,
and implementation measures contained therein. The FSEIR is on
file with the Community Development Department.
26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape plans, PL Landscape
including utility and tree coordination plans, layout plans, irrigation plan approval
plans, planting plans, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development installation
Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Plans shall be
generally consistent with the layout of the Preliminary Landscape
drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Smith + Smith
Landscape Architects, received by the Planning Division on August
11, 2014, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as
required by the Community Development Director to address specific
site constraints or conditions. At the Final Landscape Plan stage,
the tree and plant material selections shall be reviewed in detail as
the areas of the site needed for bioretention/water quality are
finalized through the development of detailed Site Improvement
Plans. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring that plant
material shown in bioretention areas are well-suited for those soil
conditions. Alternative species shall be considered to ensure
compatibility with the contemporary look and feel of the building
architecture and overall design aesthetic.
The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density
so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years
from the time of planting.
c. All trees that are on the perimeter of the project site and along
the main north-south drive aisle shall be 24" box minimum, with
at least 30% at 36" box or greater. Other trees located
throughout the parking lot and the project site shall be 15 gallon
and 24" box. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. All
groundcover shall be 1 gallon in size. These standards shall be
met unless a superior design concept is proposed by the
Applicant and accepted by the City.
d. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters
and paving surfaces where applicable.
e. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the Tentative map and
conditions detailed in the Site Development Review plan set.
f. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be
required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees,
and the irrigation system for one year.
g. That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will
11
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation,
fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable.
h. The Layout Plan shall illustrate the design of all hardscape
elements including walls, fences, gates, light locations, at grade
or above grade utility boxes and vaults, walkways and
decorative pavement.
i. The Irrigation Plan shall utilize low flow, durable, irrigation
equipment and the design shall comply with Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELD) requirements.
j. Construction details of raised planters, walkways, paths,
benches, walls, fences and other architectural features as
appropriate to the project.
k. All pole light locations shall be coordinated with the placement
of trees to eliminate conflicts between the trees and lights and
so that the light is not blocked by the growth of the trees.
27. Landscaping at southern property line (adjacent to 1-580). The PL Approval of
final Landscape Plan shall identify vine, groundcover, and shrub Landscape
planting adjacent to the new fence at the property line that will grow Plans
up the fence and mature quickly to provide visual screening between
the freeway and the project.
28. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. Landscaping PL Ongoing
shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or
bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape
structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be
taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
29. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the following PL Landscape
clearances: plan approval
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. and
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas installation
lines.
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone
and/or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. 15' from either side of street lights.
30. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PL, PW, Building
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of PO Permit
Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect Issuance
and Dublin Police Services. The photometric plan shall show lighting
levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface
parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties,
businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours
shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot
lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low
illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an
inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if
lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to
meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior
to Occupancy.
31. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all landscaping PL, PW Landscape
within the site and along the project frontage to the street curb and plan approval
gutter. and
12
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
installation
32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the PL, PW, F Landscape
location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and plan approval
screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and and
approved by City staff. installation
33. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Final Landscape Plans shall PL, PW Landscape
provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed plan approval
which meet current City specifications. and
installation
34. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/ Developer PL Landscape
shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department plan approval
(in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other and
required documents) that the development conforms to the City's installation
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
35. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through
conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Completion
building permit.
36. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches in height and in B Through
a walkway shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls over Completion
24 inches with a surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall
obtain permits and inspections from the Building & Safety Division.
37. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Occupancy of
phases, then all physical improvements within each phase pertaining any affected
to a particular building within the phase shall be required to be building
completed prior to occupancy of any such building within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy
Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days
prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said
Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No
individual building shall be occupied until the immediately adjoining
area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable
expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be
deferred due to inclement weather or potential harm or disruption
due to nearby construction activities of later phases with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
38. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans Building
to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans Permits
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of
Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will
not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each
set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining
the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
39. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Issuance of
13
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn building
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer.
All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
40. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts B Occupancy of
shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the Unit
main building.
41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through
installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Completion
42. Addressing B
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address grid Prior to
overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior release of
door openings on plans (front, rear, etc.). The site plan shall addresses
include a single large format page showing the entire project
and individual sheets for each building. 3 copies on full size
sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets.
b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Prior to
Commercial Security Code. permitting
c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of Prior to
the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. occupancy
43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to B Scheduling
provide observation services for all components of the lateral and the final
vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, frame
shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written inspection
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the
final frame inspection.
44. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review B Permit
and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to issuance
the Building Division on the approval.
45. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall submit all building B Issuance of
drawings and specifications for this project in an electronic format to the final
the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of occupancy
building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building
plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
46. Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of the development, B Ongoing
the applicant/developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all
hook ups or sufficient space within a construction trailer for use by
City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as
determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the
City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall
provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the
project site to accommodate this trailer. The applicant/developer
shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the
time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the
Applicant/Developer's expense.
47. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 B 30 days after
reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved permit and
14
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plan. each revision
issuance
48. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar B Through
Zone on the roof and site plans. Detail the orientation of the Solar Completion
Zone. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets
the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
49. Accessible Parking. The required number of accessible parking B Through
stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall Completion
be as required by the CA Building Code. The number and locations
in the SDR are for reference only and are not approved.
50. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all trash B Through
enclosures and associated amenities / structures and are required to Completion
meet the accessibility and building codes.
51. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code B Prior to
Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Permitting
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an
Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to
set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no
improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official,
such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's
Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building
remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building
Official.
52. CA Green Building Code. B Prior to
a) Project shall install short and long term bicycle stalls meeting Permitting
the requirements of the CA Green Building Code. The
location, style and number shall be submitted to the Building
Official for review and approval.
b) Clean Air, Vanpool and Electric Vehicle parking stalls shall be
provided. The location and number shall meet or exceed the
requirements of the CA Green Building Code.
53. The project shall comply with all Building and Fire Code Fire At permit
requirements at the time of permit issuance. issuance
54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements Fire Occupancy
In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be
installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the
NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. This may be a
deferred submittal.
a. Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed
mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut
sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for
approval and permit prior to installation.
b. All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the
CA Building Code.
c. Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit
detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including
cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department
for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and
fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire
Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be
hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior
15
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a
system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department.
d. Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing
systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves
and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of
central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval. The central station monitoring service
shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A.
Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated
or Placarded and not just the monitoring station.
55. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required in Assembly / Fire Occupancy
Mercantile Occupancy.
A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the
building so as to provide full property protection, including
combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire,
Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system,
compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be
interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if
activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall
meet requirements of C.F.C.
56. FD Building Key Box for Building Access. A Fire Department Key Fire Occupancy
Box shall be installed at the main entrance to all commercial
buildings. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be
installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
57. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of PW Ongoing
Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements
of the State Code Title 24 and the American's with Disabilities Act
with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to
the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, the Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor
Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
58. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval
of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or
agency of the City related to the project (Tract 8203) to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the city's promptly
notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and
16
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
59. General Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the PW Prior to
following General Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Issuance of
Map 8203—The Green at Park Place. Building
Permits
60. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the
intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going
to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in
order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts of this project.
61. If there are conflicts between the Vesting Tentative Map approval
and the SDR approval pertaining to mapping or public improvements
the Vesting Tentative Map shall take precedence.
62. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Ownership and PW Final Map and
maintenance of street right-of-ways, common area parcels and open Ongoing
space areas and improvements shall be by the City of Dublin and
The Green at Park Place Homeowner's Association as shown on the
"Ownership and Maintenance Plan" Stage II PD Exhibits, Sheet
C6.01, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated June 27, 2014,
except the landscape parkway strip and sidewalk along the project
frontage at Martinelli Way shall be City Owned and HOA maintained,
and except as modified by these Conditions of Approval.
63. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Improvement
Homeowners' Association(s) and/or Property Owners' Association Plans
shall be formed that covers both the residential and commercial
parcels by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape,
decorative pavement and other features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open
space and common area landscaping; all stormwater treatment
measures; trail improvements; and the EVAE. Said declaration shall
set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The
CC&Rs shall contain a provision that parking for residential uses
may overflow onto the commercial parcel(s). The parking study
submitted and approved for the project assumed a certain amount of
commercial parking spaces would serve as guest parking for the
residential units. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs
requested by City without the City's approval. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good
repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping & irrigation, decorative
pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy
of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to
these conditions of approval.
64. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication and installation of PW First Final Map
public improvements may be done in phases as indicated on the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review, subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the
City Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and
17
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
access the phased lots created. All rights-of-way and
improvements, including utilities and traffic signal installation and
modifications, identified by the City Engineer for construction within
the boundaries of each phase of the development shall be required
with the Final Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer may
require the Developer to perform off-site grading in order to conform
site grading to the adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for
development.
65. Private street and common area subdivision improvements. PW First Phase of
Common area improvements, private streets, private alleys and all Improvement
other subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the Plans
homeowners' and/or property owners' association(s) are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval
and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement for each
respective tract. Such improvements include, but are not limited to:
curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps &
driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces; street lights
(wired underground) and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities;
landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping;
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire
hydrants.
66. Private Street Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE), Sanitary PW First Phase of
Sewer Easements (SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be Improvement
established over the entire private street right-of-ways within all Plans
subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication statements on
each Final Map are to recite that the easements are available for,
but not limited to, the installation, access and maintenance of
sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and communication
facilities. Project entry monument signs and walls shall not be
located within these easements.
67. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall dedicate PW Final
Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear Acceptance of
pavement width of all private streets and alleys. Easement Project
geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
68. Intersections: The design of the intersections shall be generally as PW Improvement
shown on the Tentative Map and the Site Development Review. The Plans
Developer shall submit details of typical intersection layout showing
the design for the ramps, sidewalks, lane lines, turn lanes, entry
walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street trees, crosswalk
locations and decorative pavement to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans. Final
design details shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
69. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street monuments to PW Improvement
be set in all private streets. Private street monuments shall be set at Plans
all intersections and as determined by the City Engineer.
70. Stormwater Source Control. "No Dumping Drains to Bay" storm PW Prior to
drain medallions per City Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on Issuance of
all public and private storm drain inlets. Building
Permits
71. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved at this time. The PW Prior to
number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and Grading
approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans
18
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian ramps shall be
designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked or
unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such
that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it
is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall not be provided, unless
specifically approved by the City Engineer.
72. Trash Enclosures. The Developer shall construct trash enclosures PW Improvement
at the site. Trash enclosures shall at a minimum meet all Plans
requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section
7.98, and be approved by the trash collection company for the site
(currently AVI). The Developer shall directly coordinate with AVI for
their review and approval. The Developer shall submit written
verification to the Public Works Department that AVI has reviewed
and approved the trash enclosure size, location and design.
73. Utilities. All new utility service connections, including electrical and PW/PL Prior to
communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical Issuance of
transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an Building
appropriate utility easement or public service easement. Permits
74. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design development PW Final Map
Landscape Plans with the first plan check for the street improvement Approval
plans and final map for each respective tract. The Landscape Plans
shall show details, sections and supplemental information as
necessary for design coordination of the various civil design features
and elements including utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently
approved with the Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map.
75. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight Plans and Joint PW In Conjunction
Trench Plans shall be submitted with the first plan check for the with the Final
street improvement plans and final map for each respective tract. Map or by
The final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be completed Separate
prior to Final Map approval for each respective subdivision. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
76. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall submit a design PW Improvement
level geotechnical investigation report defining and delineating any Plans
seismic hazard. The report shall be prepared in accordance with
guidelines published by the State of California. The report is subject
to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant
prior to the acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall pay
all costs related to the required peer review. The recommendations
of those geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into the project
plans subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
77. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report PW Improvement
prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of Plans
California. The required report shall include recommendations
regarding pavement sections for all project streets including Arnold
Drive, Martinelli Way, and Hacienda Drive and all internal streets.
Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations
contained in the required soils report and grading shall be
supervised by an engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
78. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project PW [PL] On-going
Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading
19
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall
approve all grading plans prior to City approval and issuance of
grading permits.
79. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt PW Prior to
materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Working
Engineer prior to the approval the improvement plans or issuance of Within the
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on Public Right of
which the proposed disposal site is located, the Developer shall Way
provide the City with a Letter of Consent, signed by the current
owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel.
A grading plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul
material.
80. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and PW Prior to Start
grading on any portion of the project site, all underground of Public
obstructions (i.e., debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical Improvements
waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State
and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the
City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill,
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
81. Record Drawings. At the completion of construction, the Developer PW Prior to
shall provide the Public Works Department bond and electronic Release of
(PDF) copies of the civil, joint trench and landscape plans indicating Bonds
all changes that were made during construction.
82. Storm Drain Video. Private and public storm drain pipes shall be PW Improvement
videoed per the City of Dublin requirements. Notes specifying Plans and
procedures shall be included on the improvement plans. prior to
release of
bonds
83. Water Quality Treatment. The provided Stormwater Management PW Improvement
Plan included with the Tentative Map is approved in concept only. Plans
The final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to City Engineer
approval prior to approval of the Tract Improvement Plans. Approval
is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the
standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
84. Non-City Agencies. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for PW Improvement
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating Plans
non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the
Improvement Plans.
85. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. Hydrology and Hydraulic PW Improvement
Calculations shall be provided for the design of the site storm drain Plans
system.
86. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Prior to
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Issuance of
Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Building
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone Permits
7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County
Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
20
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
87. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a final PW, PL Prior to
Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service boxes are Issuance of
placed outside of public view where possible and/or screened to the Grading
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Permits
Engineer. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructures
underground including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and
gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility
agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to
installation.
88. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In Conjunction
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the Final
access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access Map or by
roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda Separate
County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
89. Tract Improvement Agreement. The Developer shall enter into a PW Final Map
Tract Improvement Agreement with the City of Dublin for all public
improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have
not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement.
90. Long Term Encroachment Agreement. The Developer shall enter PW Final Map
into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" with the City of
Dublin to allow the HOA and/or POA to maintain the landscape and
decorative features within the public right-of-way including frontage
and median landscaping, decorative pavement and special features
(i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on the Site
Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities.
The Homeowner's and/or Property Owners' Association will be
responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements
including restoration required as a result of utility repairs.
91. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. The PW Final Map
Developer shall enter into a "Stormwater Treatment Measures
Maintenance Agreement" (O&M Agreement) with the City of Dublin
that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm
water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said
agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h of RWQCB Order
R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to
provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be
properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if
the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or
other public entity.
92. Security. The Developer shall provide Faithful Performance security PW Final Map
(100%), and Labor & Materials security (100%), to guarantee the
tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to
execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the
Final Map.
21
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
93. Maintenance Security. Upon acceptance of the improvements, the PW Acceptance of
Faithful Performance security may be replaced with a maintenance Improvements
bond that is 25% of the value of the Faithful Performance security.
The maintenance bond is returned to the Developer within one year
of City acceptance of the improvements.
FEES
94. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of PW Zone 7 and
building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Parkland In-
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Lieu Fees due
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, prior to Final
Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services Map;
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Other Fees
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) required with
Drainage and Water Connection fees and any other fees except and issuance of
as otherwise noted in the Development Agreement. building
permits
95. Parkland In-Lieu Fees. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or PW Prior to Filing
pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Final Map
Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these
amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
96. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment PW Start of Work
Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity
within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has
accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require
surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City
Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an
Improvement Agreement may not be required.
97. Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a PW Start of Work
Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot
or residential condominium unit.
98. Other Agency Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required PW Issuance of
by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Permit/Start of
Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Work
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
permits to the Public Works Department.
SUBMITTALS
99. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Improvement
requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Plan or Final
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Map
Improvement Plan Review Check List".
100. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Improvement
obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Plans or Final
Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Map
Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
101. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street PW Grading/Impro
pavement sections and grading recommendations. vement Plans
or Final Map
102. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF file and PW Acceptance of
digital vectorized file of the "master" CAD files for the project when
22
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not Improvements
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or and Release
higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the of Bonds
precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
103. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative PW Approval of
Maps approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by Final Map
these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases,
provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that
phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate
infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a
stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for
infrastructure.
104. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Map. Final Map
105. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements of a Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map is subject to the approval and conditions of the City Final Map
Engineer.
106. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Approval of
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street Final Map
names shall be indicated on the Final Map.
107. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be set in all public PW Monuments to
streets. be shown on
Final Map and
installed prior
to acceptance
of
Improvements
EASEMENTS
108. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Approval of
agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer Improvement
be used. Plans and
Final Map
109. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry PW Approval of
from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their Improvement
property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing Plans and
and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Final Map
GRADING
110. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Grading Plans
Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City design or Issuance of
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil Grading
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer Permit.
shall determine which shall apply.
111. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Approval of
Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Grading Plans
maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control or Issuance of
measures. Grading
Permit.
23
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
112. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Approval of
property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the finished Grading Plans
grade of the upper lot. or Issuance of
Grading
Permit.
113. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1. The PW Approval of
toe of any slope along public streets shall be one foot back of Grading Plans
walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three or Issuance of
feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above Grading
slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints submit to Permits, and
the approval of the City Engineer. Ongoing
IMPROVEMENTS
114. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Approval of
on the Vesting Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. Grading/Impro
However, the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site vement Plans
Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the or issuance of
drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. grading
permits.
115. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard PW Approval of
Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Grading/Impro
Engineer. vement Plans
or Start of
Construction.
116. Martinelli Way. The Developer shall dedicate two feet (2') of right- PW Final Map
of-way and install street improvements along the project's Martinelli
Way frontage. Required street improvements include, but are not
limited to: removal of existing asphalt concrete sidewalk;
construction of new ten foot (10') wide Class I pedestrian/bike trail
and four foot (4') wide (inclusive of curb) landscape strip; driveways;
curb ramps; street trees; irrigation and relocation of utilities.
Developer shall also install root barriers adjacent to both sidewalk
and back of curb within landscape strip.
117. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
construct frontage improvements along Arnold Road, north of the
project driveway, such that the curb-to-median curb width is twenty
six feet (26') and include a twelve foot (12') travel lane, six foot (6)
bike lane and eight foot (8') parking lane. The Developer shall also
install a five foot (5') (inclusive of curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
Required roadway improvements on Arnold Road north of the
Project driveway shall include, but are not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, curb ramps, drainage structures and relocation of utilities.
118. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. Approximately 12-18 PW Final Map
feet of excess right-of-way behind the new back-of-walk shall be
vacated with the first Final Map for the project in accordance with
Subdivision Map Act Sections 66434(g) and 66436. The new right-
of-way line shall coincide with the new back-of-walk.
119. Arnold Road — South of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements along
Arnold Road, south of the project driveway, such that the curb-to-
median curb width is twenty six feet (26') and include a twelve foot
(12') travel lane, six foot (6) bike lane and eight foot (8') parking
lane. The Developer shall also install a five foot (5') (inclusive of
24
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
120. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall dedicate and secure PW First Final Map
the dedication of right-of-way and install complete roadway and requiring
utility improvements for the construction of a new cul-de-sac at the frontage
current southern terminus of Arnold Road near the southwest corner improvement
of the project. The Developer shall facilitate and secure the on Arnold
dedication of right-of-way required on the adjacent Alameda County Road
Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) parcel necessary for the
construction of the new cul-de-sac. Dedication of the required right-
of-way by ACSPA shall be recorded prior to approval of the First
Final Map that requires frontage improvements on Arnold Road.
121. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. Required roadway and utility PW First Final Map
improvements for the Arnold Road cul-de-sac shall include, but are requiring
not limited to: removal/reconstruction of existing median nose, frontage
removal of existing traffic islands, installation of pavement, curb, improvement
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, utilities, on Arnold
street lights, and fire hydrants. The minimum curb-to-curb diameter Road
for the cul-de-sac shall be ninety six feet (96'). Final design of cul-
de-sac and connection to Alta Mirano Avenue shall be subject to
review and approval of the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer.
122. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall use diligent PW First Final Map
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its cost, any right-of- requiring
way, access rights and other consents and approvals from affected frontage
property owners necessary to complete improvements for the Arnold improvement
Road cul-de-sac; provided, however, that if the Developer is unable, on Arnold
through the use of diligent commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain Road
the necessary right-of-way, access rights and other consents and
approvals for any portion of the Arnold Road cul-de-sac (an
"Unacquired Portion") by the date that is six months before the date
construction is scheduled to Commence, the Developer shall so
notify the City in writing, and either:
a. City shall procure the necessary right-of-way, access rights and
other consents and approvals for the applicable Unacquired
Portion and shall seek to gain possession of the Unacquired
Portion within a timeframe that will not delay Developer's
schedule. Developer's obligation to Commence Construction
with respect to the applicable Unacquired Portion shall be tolled
until City has procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals; or
b. If City has not procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals within two years after the date
Construction Commenced on the Arnold Road cul-de-sac,
Developer shall be released from its obligations under these
Conditions of Approval and any of the other approvals with
respect to the construction of the cul-de-sac. The Developer
shall then be responsible for construction of the alternate
`hammerhead' turnaround as shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map.
123. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Approval of
flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at Grading/Impro
minimum 0.5% slope. vement Plans
or Start of
25
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
Construction.
Ongoing
124. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, PW Approval of
all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot Grading/Impro
radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a vement Plans
minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb or Start of
ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 Construction.
and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved Ongoing
by the City Traffic Engineer.
125. All landscaping and any architectural structure shall be no more than PW Improvement
30 inches tall inside the Visibility zone established by a Safe Plans
Stopping Sight Distance at the project entrances on Martinelli Way
and Arnold Road. The Safe Stopping Sight Distance shall be based
on the 35 MPH on Martinelli Way and 30 MPH on Arnold Road. The
sight distances shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
126. Decorative pavers, stamped concrete or other similar non-standard PW Approval of
pavement sections shall not be installed on any public right of way, Grading/Impro
unless the design and location is reviewed and approved by the City vement Plans
Engineer. In general, decorative pavement (pavers, or similar non- or Start of
standard pavement sections) shall not be installed over traffic Construction.
detector loops, inside crosswalks or within thirty feet (30') of any Ongoing
crosswalk or STOP bar. Decorative pavements shall not interfere
with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement
markings. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
127. Median Landscaping. Median landscaping at the main entrance to PW Improvement
the site from Martinelli Way shall not exceed maximum height for Plans and
sight distance requirements. ongoing
128. Utility Design. All utility design including but not limited to storm PW Geotechnical
drain and storm water treatment measures shall be located as not to Report and
compromise the integrity of the building foundations for Improvement
excavation/maintenance of utility is needed. Geotechnical Engineer Plans
Report shall address the clearance required.
129. Bike Lanes on Arnold Drive. Bike Lanes shall be provided along PW Improvement
the frontage of the project on Arnold Road. Bike lane design shall be Plans
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
130. TDM Plan. Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand PW Prior to
Management Plan (TDM) Plan as per the SEIR mitigations. The Approval of
TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Final Map
Engineer prior to implementation and shall include additional TDM
measures for residential development beyond those that are noted in
the SEIR.
131. Class 1 Trail. Developer shall construct a Class 1 Trail at least 10 PW Improvement
feet wide with adequate clearances from the intersection of Martinelli Plans
Way and Hacienda Drive, south along the Hacienda Drive frontage
and west along the southern property frontage, to the southern
terminus of Arnold Drive to connect to the trail along Altamirano
Way, and as approved by the City Engineer.
132. Traffic Signal and Median Modifications. Developer shall modify PW Improvement
traffic signal at the intersection of Martinelli Way and project Plans
driveway, and at Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive. The medians
26
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
along Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive shall be modified to
accommodate safe turning movements and overall traffic circulation.
The changes to the intersection at Martineli Way and Hacienda Drive
will trigger significant changes to the signal operations along
Hacienda Drive. Developer shall pay for any needed operational
changes including traffic consultant costs for updating signal
coordination plans, and field implementation of operational changes
at the intersection. Developer shall submit any traffic signal
operational changes to the City Traffic Engineer for review and
approval prior to field implementation. Developer shall install a traffic
monitoring camera and associated equipment at the intersection of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
133. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall PW Improvement
incorporate full trash capture measures such as screens, filters or Plans
CDS/Vortex units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
134. Stormwater Treatment. Developer shall incorporate source control PW Improvement
measures, stormwater treatment measures, and trash capture Plans
measures into the site design as required pursuant to Provision C.3
and C.10 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit,
Order No. R2-2009-0074, CAS612008.
135. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as PW Occupancy of
required by the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
136. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed PW Occupancy of
per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Units or
streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of
Improvements
137. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Occupancy of
locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Units or
Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Acceptance of
installing these improvements. Bus stops shall have a bus pull-out Improvements
with an entry taper of 40 feet, exit taper of 80 feet and the bus
landing area 80 feet long and 12 feet deep. All bus stops shall have
the electricity connection for any future upgrades to electronic signs
as per LAVTA guidelines and/or standards.
138. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary PW Occupancy of
sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with Units or
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Acceptance of
Improvements
139. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire PW Occupancy of
Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Units or
the street opposite each hydrant. Acceptance of
Improvements
140. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Occupancy of
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
141. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication PW Occupancy of
improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve Units or
27
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Acceptance of
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Improvements
142. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Occupancy of
underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Units or
All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Acceptance of
easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Improvements
143. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Occupancy of
otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Units or
landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Acceptance of
Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the Improvements
City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures
and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench
Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of
the joint trench improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW On-going as
shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non-City needed
holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The
Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined
days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on
neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting
a request form to the City Engineer. For work on Saturdays, said
request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior
Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all after-hours,
Saturday, and/or holiday work.
145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain all PW, B, PL Prior to
construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until disposal Construction
off-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the
adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt,
mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the
City of Dublin.
146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to
fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Issuance of
Engineer and the Building Official. Building
Permits
147. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer shall PW Ongoing as
include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and needed
Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually
maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October
1St and April 15th or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather,
or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures
for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
148. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as
construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a needed
professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
149. Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that PW Start of
28
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on Construction,
surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Implementatio
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, n, and
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise Ongoing as
monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided needed
prior to project construction.
150. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Start of
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction,
parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementatio
Engineer. n, and
Ongoing as
needed
151. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities.
152. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Ongoing
palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as
directed by the City Engineer.
153. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Issuance of
letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Building
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Permits or
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Acceptance of
banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Improvements
approved Grading Plans.
STORM WATER QUALITY (NPDES)
154. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the City PW Start of any
evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California construction
State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the activities
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be
kept at the construction site.
155. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project prepared prior
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control to approval of
measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most improvement
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control plans,
Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices implementatio
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all n prior to start
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures of construction
in the SWPPP. and ongoing
as needed
156. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSRSD Issuance of
plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements Building
of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD Permits
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable
DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
157. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSRSD Issuance of
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development Improvement
project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in Plans
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.
158. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSRSD Issuance of
existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged Improvement
29
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a Plans
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will
require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth
20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a
separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
159. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSRSD Issuance of
Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or Improvement
interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Plans
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
160. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in DSRSD Issuance of
public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent Improvement
possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements Plans
must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or
water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access
for future maintenance and/or replacement.
161. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSRSD Issuance of
development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Improvement
easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Plans
to and approved by DSRSD.
162. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSRSD Issuance of
instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on Improvement
the Final Map. Plans
163. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be DSRSD Issuance of
submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Improvement
widths, and restrictions. Plans
164. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Permits
checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated
with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD
Code.
165. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the DSRSD Issuance of
proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A Improvement
construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the Plans
condition immediately above have been satisfied.
166. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by Permits
the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall
contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by
the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD
fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for
the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance
policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The
applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
30
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
167. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSRSD Issuance of
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Building
indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Permits
resulting from the construction and completion of the project.
168. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSRSD Issuance of
required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect Improvement
to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Plans
Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements
therein.
169. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check DSRSD Issuance of
valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the Improvement
DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Plans
Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system.
The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection
system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the
backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through
strategic placement and landscaping.
170. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSRSD Issuance of
existing utilities (if any). Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Improvement
Storage Facility shall be shown on final plans. Plans
171. DSRSD has major water infrastructure in the area in the form of DSRSD Ongoing
pipelines going from DSRSD Turnout 4 to customers. Applicant
shall ensure that the DSRSD infrastructure is not damaged or
compromised during the construction of this project.
172. DSRSD maintains radio communications links between Turnout 4 DSRSD Occupancy of
and Pump Station 10A and Reservoir 10A for transmission of first tenant
SCADA information. Applicant plans will be reviewed to ensure the space
communications links will remain unbroken Applicant, DSRSD and
City of Dublin will coordinate to be sure this DSRSD communications
link will remain operative and reliable after construction.
173. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are DSRSD Issuance of
submitted and approved. Sitework
Permit
174. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD Ongoing
175. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas with recycled water DSRSD Ongoing
service shall only be allowed for cross-connection and coverage
testing for a maximum of 14 calendar days.
176. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-sac would DSRSD Issuance of
make the standard spacing between water mains and sewer mains Sitework
unworkable, the developer must request an exemption from Permit
DSRSD's standard spacing requirements between mains. Such an
exemption may be granted, but only if:
1. The spacing between the sewer and water main is the maximum
width possible using the proposed width of the alley.
2. In no case is the spacing between the sewer and water main less
than five (5) feet measured edge to edge.
3. The vertical separation between the water line and the sewer line
is at least one (1) foot with the sewer line deeper than the water line.
4. The material for the water line is Class 200 pressure rated PVC
water pipe (DR 14 per AWWA C900-97 & C905-97) and the material
for the sewer main is PVC pipe using bell and spigot joints using
rubber gaskets meeting the requirements of ASTM D3034, SDR26,
31
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
cell classification 12454-B or 12454-C.
Developer should be aware that the exemption is not guaranteed to
be granted, but may be granted if all special provisions for the
narrow alleyway are followed.
177. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone DSRSD Issuance of
(Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation Sitework
systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved Permit
landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as
described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, December
2005. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer,
compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or
superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation
plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with
District's "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health
Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 4-SDR Reso.docx
32
........ ............. ---
........... Jill
riwap�aa N I I"n"a
N a 3, S 0 3HJZ
1 fl
zi
..........
Lu
Ul
19
z
2 41,
i7 an o a a r�0 rr�
z
uj r 0,
CL
2
UJ V) f it
U,
uj
LU
fs LL!
z
ui
z
CL
Uj
LU
ce
0
Um
UJ
z
J/1
rirj
llJ
OP 9
000000000000000 opogg
fflOUlf(KN�krcMh�lraol�rkv/�a✓�M<K rrt rrn rlr�✓.kaarr�;✓�wu�rr�.r,nMpNCrrlarrn✓srfaO�NK/FMNOMMIMMfallKMUNMMA91((MMMINSIIram rtmr�rru'�rrrrw��'r momI a , "° ", '"'" ",""."" ,........ ......._....
1
E�1111 pWU ... 6
r
M � e
F .
fTL-
����� m � ,� M�• a� M M�a�s�arum � �� !. � �„""' m V�pl�'M
n
� I
t
i N
� l X11.11
1 IT
� 24,
low
IZJ
p
,
All 7
All
G xa�w�sa,Mw war am M crrrvz ,nae IM P� �Ip�� °
akw eti�mG a °���"w °�ti q
a +aarvHn unm s as aw.m drera 't t
i
i
i
i
i
i
HIV lift 41 ilb S G 410 is 40 0 t l 0 0 0 0 ill 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 (duo 00 fe 119 VI '16,01 4
m,xrrrrurumrarrrrmau itamrwmsmiumr marrrK rr r rt a r«arrrrrruy rrarmrrarmvurJi c<rrrrrrruarured(si rcmr U wU
1-1!
M N '�.. Ilv✓c941A �'— � N. % .� � IY� w F� .®...... �,,,,,,..... µ :n I�
a
F x
a �
µ _ k
a
JM
. m .�
,p
G
0 0 0, G CIF do ob 6D 10 AW 9 fN , 4411 db Wow ilk a A A a AIb a a a sift
fo4k�r�rr�rrKK����rarr�H�irrm���rr�raUwr�uuiru�n��aruV�s�rmANr�'�rrrurtrrMr�'u(�lRrrr(l!�rumk�r�rGfr��r�l�lrlt�l l4iU�RFN�fa4l'�lG�(a(ll�ulr(Cl((��Nf��t��r�i�ar�r�r,uwF��rl�rna�rwUemvuun<Naaou n " °" ,,,.� ,,. ......._..
I%
...' .IH,.L
1
, U��
c
�j
�
V/1
'
w "
7
q
.r.. h
yy a
a` INN
1
t r
v�gawa1
Rl
r
a nniaa r.
r
�• ������� 'n�WJ1 �,'wal� �esurr�,�,Wnrur�r � � iGy� 9Q I �fh � � r dv l� 'a a u1U{anti �� iIIfW q� r (�
4
1
t77— i
t
I m�
I
% 7l Y"f 0 MUM�"
d
t
r ��
TFT
Lj
TTF
1
n
1
AM
' v 4
A+Y IXW WaFd tlAAl Yd�v� �
a
,j
am ioi muuuu, mamlK "Alb,. Mgt aft, MOIL dmltloa�. dalk All, ,III, Alllio Abil� AM ish, Mill, d1111,41111h, ilt Illsi� ok a 01, dos, hiss to�� G, 4141
(J�fP((Rf((lFd/if lKff/AOb,/l6(fkflf(IAMt?(!�lwW1fN$WL AVP(U!GWiAM�f�P(FfMF'N,�i,�✓,f�l(ldf(K!(!/'f(Alf(4f(N(J(i(RV%(ftNlulVf4'49J(�Sll1LLfV4�fb�Wfll1(,htt61Vf14@191ttNillY/iM11l(fif(fmP((4✓NMIfwMfR/NWN(f/46NIY40'S411N4MIaloMlPn n F ¢tne!NON wufctNUnL'nu F uwwvovw ev �✓em "" "—""
1
qO 3HI
,
9 I d
o.
q� w
IC
i k J11� �
.7 YW WJNI91 m,�
/ �., � ✓f � � ,. w,w J� -� m p F M LWI1Ep4 � w�kb
m_
a �L
J4'f111T4ffi k CT.f lf1TTL
Jv
6 � k
�.
1
✓ LL
M�:u:- p
"'
U11'. Iq�flpTlflkl lV�TLll111 lLL1tl11V lL ''
i j j 9
��
,
T 11 11 �✓
f �
mmfp ,,;,,,;r �, qf,{ CVI911GIN4VitlVllfl _y
rrbv
U
15 11
...... .
i
1
dMIIM ffib, a& 11111h mialli, 'ft Aft, d2iii, yob. Ah ask 1Ifi1Ih All, II11IIVuo uu10V0e m^ , i ff M6oln, ANNA uVO11, uMIl6W, m01Mll'iW: 9111, MNW(NWWa a011MfW if IIIIfIMta Mlfo uIIVWGIW ab 411111lif lilillmlll@ Allb A 411, Ii A, MM+lh tll& Aft, IN A k' iii
it(fktfhKr,3! lrffT/f2&GtFlLW 4raV'Nt;PU f[6nw;N. «rurc'erlr r(fflNFAf(46WlMCµVµidMN'N4LNNHiµNUDRmrcrcp htt6ttfaGlafnrvn KIII VµIY@1µ6NNNµ019W9UW ntN`I.NNINxI mw w,w ",»v „° °"""", "" ... ......
w
j :...... .............
_.
0
i
T r i 811
�IdIL(Ill" IIII�llll(P�C�! I�II � I' ,
" rc
m tr,,�.,� ��° ,flkl1ifllil ""
tot
l
k
G % N
U
dtiW'Fdb. P
r
i
'%
n
t
x
i III
�R7 �1'�
�r fit,
j s� ill
i
v � v
i
_............
oar 011 A ift 19w dill 1111111, mis 1h d0b ish A A nlImb 01 d1w, dift 0, d1b Alk ill leb a A a 111 ab do A, is, lob All, ib ds 11110, 41, 411 fik 11111 111) IS S a 0
�j///'/ 11\II°I°PIII01\IIIwI ((IlldlIM1ll6l((fllNINYM4AYNN10PN FNNONYauuovn n n nnuovnnvmnvmw nxen r nanoiwn. ry n w oro v
///,�//M1fVr'RnM1f(n((/kdkkfkfiJM m!�Lw'N\k,'Pw,F/LII�J(\f�lW(�FQ6f(l�'IfN;QfF\((�fN,/�fNN„/l Wl Flf l4(W/�nf�RNf F�F�F�Ilf6�6fiU(l%�6ii�liGfOffGflNll!XNJ(M1M�INONtW('Nntf9P{1Yl(OMfOmRdlldi\IiNl�ll(4A!!ffKAfNNAfhUh4f/NfNNM1NNINWNriUA9WMNUUNN Ill91INUI(WIFfl
F1.1-11111
p W
p Sx W
3 �
� � 4
i
III a
w°
I
°N1.��1I�IUiIYIfI�FI�fP�1Gl'rvi
r 1 � Drv�
� _ 14 am YIr
J7 7
J i`• i"� ,W .._�, �H�;,� 'rNfh f Vhf � , ryW;,� M � �1t�P'� e...�. P'� G I,"
G
z nvmananwsl2
6
mW��4, a .. ...� .
du
I'
w,
o
III e
. ,,, �, „a w'• r .�} {�� ri4 U.,1 wu�w.l / "N(I,r �� 794
u 1 �
i r
r �
II
�rvn,II_:� I+u Ir i+„vr•��rr,W,,;;� Yo, i��,; .�I„�.,, gg
YOE"3 133HR 333 g
A
111A Alb ek, din ft oft ob dill d1b db M dI1b a mal all AID 111 d6b dill illy 1b, a 0 46 111 iIIIlIo A 'all lb G 11110 410 111 lib lis a ob 10, 411, is M ' !
" IIFtlNNM6ri10WNiiIItlP9 YNNNtNMh4A4MNIigNi4M14ttM41114NRVIFNMFmM4Ndmxuuavo nn uvu evxevevuvvu +.
p�G &t��u rrr wrw�w��tiar� r�rrr�rr rRr�rrwr<rr owrrerra nwawwMwr�w/w�iw�rra�w«r« «warawtmiwmwavuwprwwwrca�rwawwMVVww oKwuw�r�ww6w,uue� wma��m�r rrr�rr�� un, nm
w
6u 16 Ilw " m,,err
IN, .... 9�. CU�'.... ....-.. �. '
iw I b'kNMq��fl'M,N NI1�II�AH c""7
q w &
;a
.. w . ._ �rx away
rm c ,rcwa I v,
�f 7 - tM
���
j �l' .�"���� - � ,r>• w 1,,� rsrr{, i�, .ry i�l"M��`'¢ rl ';'i I�I W.�'I K�.
ijawd It
G
(( dagq j
w
x
w 0
o I
t
1 r
ro
,J" iVPo" YY� /I C Wr b
4111
. I ....� � 11..... R
/ p
�
' `I
it
V 9 uo �m
f i1µ uN
a. x wwerra 1
i
it
G
G.
'11%, a a Imm, mvli� mt% m n,Ilwot� am at, dillIm �llml:ilfti I19I11Ah III& a ou11l1b,At IS III do,ulI w Ill dit 1111%911 Ah iob i1h ob is ft 11111111 lollb III IS M 11b lab III all dw
- MOMMA PRMiMWWWIIIIIWIItlNUtONONW\.OD\41roN4YUU4AM1\ M9M1WVuxum nmrvnmmmnnnu !nwvmaxevnm wxvaurvouox ne
� (f(Nwmrrrroroafwr4;lroUNderNw�+fUhlsar 4lr«rl�r arr llr� rata lr✓kNr r�ut�duVi�fNG.�Ci(G.�KA9drNMUR'M� �1k�(k�i�NNfi1f1f1NNiNUa�llV�tuJdMN�U6aR�(?tuifWfG(i92;PhuNttdttWNO�ta r uw«rrrrtmy41(rarNNN�faM6'uauu6
i
0
_. hill Ik raara r Ic ri. "f i !k N.u MUM mmia..
i
0 u..
y
Y
rRte:...
Y
+ U
/ un
ro �
W4.
" + ; -It,
x Sam. 211
vo
�n
i
rr " fw w
u
7..
nw "
'
... a. ...ro..�
I -Rill
LL tt Y:,
ks
1
N �
fill I��
JLI
aP
1y di
r
C73 fa �J1t yP
� R l 1 t 1
fY
Ipi ' P
'Iq ll"',
�
�
h
_.............
a))&r ills, alb AM M A dh A lis allot A A A dw do SO Mb ED>Ml Mb lb A dh tlllml�al lIIll� AD All Of , 0, 0 do olo 0, 0, M, G 41 i9, 0
" /l' /f! !GM(IN1ttnn \\1\0NAVY 11N➢.ONUxD94N lvmunnmrnnn a ununuxuww.0 nviveevavovum on ...
--%Ol,'Jf�GilYaJaM wr/I Imam m�wUG,'r�N�✓�e'aarretY€aiarwN,ao-/r rnrrFlcl dr rur4rAl m:wt4rtaldbiV�uV�k6wiG�f4�1QI11GilNl�ff�fOPf�lulNfh(0.lnitthdlNSSIPHivi%dfl�rdN�whW'rdKllGPd�OLf(NRfNnarummu �M 4au4'pu<urt wrr�wrr4� rou.
Ifl U4 fJ
dd � l�x W I #V.ff0MIInN'�NJ
�...
go So 1.23"x'a3$
JI
l ��lllrl�lll,ll,�,l('1111111 ilJV f(I
9 n _
g^✓µ MM s
lip
i
D r
r
_�....
1 w
m � r
L
a a 1.1.1.ill ,�.... -
. ,
�.
so
,. , 'r .
r :r
l
F
�I��r.�rC
r � m
I �
III .
/ f
. °a�
e.
J ...mm
!I.L Y? d � _ wnrnmm � wR TIgip Pry
—
°M14 �
a..
r
I M
0 {
i
G A& d1ii, Ift tiffif AND 01h "Ith % oft 'eft A1[[[ 111111 A AMR% 111111111, muuultiw1 AM ,ter ab ift 111191% 111111 mall all Ask A a 41111hv,Sh Alhi,A 11b db,a dIIb a Aot db dlb A 46 1'i IS 41%
/lA(NrF��'R�(Armr�rrr l�lSll�'w r�br�f(��k�N�JA✓uUrfw�r(�rlrl rrcrlra u,hr rr�lmllVJtaG,'rRrW,v�,rdf,Nf�irWrl�,'AfdANNdffG4fG?�hWfWf!fo1UUWW1aWrN�umo�tu�sGlMrm NN6iaMAWINouuup�ru momm rc ruwrcddwa'an o ,"" .. .. ..... _.....
0
'r
lot"
__._....m .......
m 1
-
---
_ e
r
i
r� r
111 d I x y.xleun.m
POD 000.0
.L I (�
I
..........__ _ .,. L................ . :
— •.... 1 .11.. ..�•��
71-11)t7W
i I II
i
r
1
K 7- OW11, 1 111
lGMID tI]EI 11.R ilif H
y+y'y'q^��
d7r'IY�
i
i
jr
i
A% Aswoiuih 'gib 111h 111h Ob1 x110% 1111h Ma AN At, A ,INID Ol m1111k 1111w, ist ,m 11, d111 gh a' il�l it Ift AS d1k 41b a III ul h a d1b &A s ifil a, 421 ON�M a OSSAI
U dGdlldfd "lttll!!1W!!INNtlIWOWODUeuuwOrrrvn mn o v uxuxx(l�'iAl(�fJ�,;4PRl(;irFf hui(�lrvf ad!drtdFiGAOR�UPR(d7✓l/loiGKdliGif Gif WWG�!UAGkJ/m(fbxl'dF!✓l f(l�/P�/GWfl Att f:Nri/GKKRF✓NRR�V/(kQf(4SN4$%NNFIdS000IIRfAWfdi(&Gi
WQMhVIPI!�fiS(Viii(,NN�u6'BeUNftsiKti�UANni(Rff(fiff�tNl(ff0t6tt611NlOLX1NNWW14llU1WNW4UdF✓NdGMrtdO
i
i
�IIN��U^dl4'4�"lktlV9BlCG.�..�_,
IIY ',�N G7wO 3Hi
wo Awe
4 ail
..I CA-
If
a i tl
1
aj �
11 Q
C
i
i
.
'.
e 1
N
ViL .. ..�:.., ��
L14 r c qw
r � �arr�i�urm � �,�
u�
r
G/ u
{
4
ffi, A& mfumd chalk rvIft AIR, mlMl% a& it ab 111111111r Ifth AR alk mfili 91% uuiio, mIIh a, 1911I1, ith 110111 ift d&I aolh All 111111b A IS ally @11I�, a VlIb 0, a a alb db Ob 111 a 411 1111 ills
"(KANf(flf NA\l9AMYMMUM 9
F�LL
/lf/�Jllk�rtfkfrf�rfkRi Gu(�l6iP(Itf N6AG fk�nrr�f4 f @f�!YrGk,PGN�Gk'�al�f[ZrONAlraa«rr ffWfFfrR Ulf udfNNaNiVfl f�iw<fKaiWiPfifi0V0 IhfKNm@tV!�WlKalaefiPdd�(m6(�,NPwr9M�.«rtrfiqmN' N IvSrNwwmu�a�u�9ewu6titRi
6, � L`111�,� III f q� N33 NO 3Hi
I LOS
o
xe
f
e
i
/
bM mht w�'UMYtlY,%Mf9
/ a
m ..,I yy u'I a H�
41—C Q
jl-
G
M
.......... z
vJJ"d u
i
e �
�4 rr
v
00
4
1
�. i V l it v
�� 7P s tl
Tom I , 4i
EF
.. .
4 W..
�r
1 777
7
IT
F
Y�
J�i';
t qq
nmam IkaM mmh ft kl�ft AM 'Aft Atilt, Ila lift ifilk Aft,I iM Alk 11111 1, AM,uolo[ ED A AS uulb All a 11111na at a Allb lillb a id, i�ii�ll% (lb a lb OR dl 911 a Ma S fit
�Gdd6KUr5GRr rarwtr(rrrrr r,�rr�imartl�9n�GlrE�tU6/�w«7(rrR��a wu�naM�;r r�ry,�nt,�,�;�,w/6f�UrNd�fflrr'�IRlRl4�enINVYOhNfaWiNlnrtmWrroVNNUOiIXd�Sr ueriVY�hq�NUdrwmivuaG�9�N!�mu�w�urnm rnwrar F H�wmwumwow ,,,,,w ,°. ,.. .....
Fa
gnu x
�,� nrw,wa m�rw�nu,xw�
i
i
s .
9Td 6"
,T
i
I
yry f
rri :
w r
.t 1
a. r
�.
TrVUm
i
% IRI tir qW
ED
a 4 JV "Vp !ilr 19tltl N
i 1901.1I1 X111, LtLfWJ.RLW i
7.
a
m
�
f 1 ,
t
jlj
..
V1 T, � ......�...
n..
.�Yom g
J1
...........
� m
h
i
i
i
i
% At, dfilhF dufiumF 1umu11h �! dlh1� AN, Alio'I� Mv Auuoclw AN, 9I1% A mouoiia 'Am milit, 99% oil A uuihtin% 110 A dill dt ilk Ab Ah tb,Ab A A silk di dh 0 dW d 0 G Ill 0
"'' f INIIWff(4fif' W„N\OIqNUNUNAOWOUOWUOUn*oun vv o w.rwv + '
/�./��G�dff JWGGl1(69Mfifq/fi9�tfgsgsuufiryirrrr��rw�ddG�..r<K a,1ru�NfNNCIwU(EhlK,40 PrkrFrra,F r7(trltrrN r6 Ml NF�kVF(�f0✓;'b"M9Nr�2f4f�Alffif�fA�4(SfiufYIaWNN4rM14PlfaffPlOFCi?fClhP6lVioerr6rrt!rN A NNNNNeWUW(I41Ww1WU�w!usmrAau.
l
i
'�9INf1911UM 'IEN�'N'@dVtl 5' C
N 33 d O.,..:31 f"#
jr �Ipry w m p Clµrylggp V}{�II IpIp IIp e ,
O
rry"I",MW
„.gx—,w�nmmmom�mc.rm.nrv� �
rT
� � I
lr
% m
144 ,
RUM
All
All
4 I
� I
e
i
,.w
loal
i
e
j � �✓Drum ..� � �= v�, � pm N � D �.,
Y ,
dwv� I
�... �'Wit
i
�'�.. _i � " 1b 11
" � (,
Allen l �.: ----- .::'
�
Cal AlVAwjw
1�
4
/' ... ......... v
I
dift A�h Aft q a �i NON ANY ASK ift mwlbfi i fiffimm A aft, alk Aft allk 1u11uuh filh ill A Ab III 4iilM A 161fnuu o>kftl A Ab A uuMti1m All uM ib dD,4111 im A 1111 d1l1l�Ill al
--- 'inrrrr«urNIM(!uaaAffigmaMIU6U nrtm I mnwtir�'uumu%ononn„ ,,,, � w'www ° ".° „,,. ,... ......
FpIP/dd(I,n;4lui6f UrtW�Rfi�imWFr/FrrwrrRrnrrw<w4fPonGUG'df9rufiGmtfr2fsk law<I�l.,��Ni.!mrr<«(rrnik!�nK,Wf uv( (O�;PA/��r(uNwA�;l6((OIfiW(r�7A/N'fii�NdNi311NWIMVII6IIC�NIVl47u(N9Sf0�069N6�WPRfiukaKrm
0
INS «a
I x ILMAS
Z/1
r,
v
e ,
i
5
� a
.^ 1 4. ,LIM,
I AWRGW A-MA
1 1'I1T 5T
.... IqI
b Ila ,L.atlwAm
'fli�'rtMd WET.......
i
r-v w t
reAISKWw
Tj EFL,� 1.�j�1-1T1 MlllYT11 F,
ll„Ilf �JCf.,PS:(1 1� .116GjilT hwN
p
MSI`F Y �;P I��IN�d WLI N41 �1�W1�Gl� W'� � r� •n. p
a p n
1
muYSmtla4. A”.wtP "".w. XillR71ti �I � �IrfP IYD� W
1�. k" � C
,;
1.M1P.�� ,
ti.
m �m
^J
W"�tl k7 a V CaWUV f
%�an�aa %N"�M1,tNIM1Au Ij
n
I IT
Fill
All
„� aft oomh, M, ummW %immix: AM, mmioim 111111h, gum 11 d1fill, 11101, mmmlim Ama dit, M,, mulmmirr, A111r, um1m, al, dm,� AINhh mom do, msmM"Mn 111110[f uI11H1L m1011ik m91lk ullmilo A irk AIllkr fim, fib 60 idhii�li illllili@ iiilhk 111 m ii B dhil6 a IM1
" rr ;« r r amimmittm m mm n�mrrm�crrrrrc�rrm✓auIMMOMiIiiIr�amrarmmromuwm1Wmmommm!w�wr«,zrrthmrrKOW uarr�murc ry vwrwunaxeummaammmmauennrx nrcunn xRnw
oil
�/errmmra�wr mru<rm�iaamrrm«rmaresvawwr�d�r�aaarw�stamamruawm�mrrdwmmKaamrrtr u�rtrc
r
N3 3 d E
4
o f„ mww uIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III
o �
Q C.i
`T rT"r I"
Ripr
IT
IN
VX
/
/
I
AM AM IIIIM wIIIm00r Ammo Mill, imimua Nlulrn as . AMR,, Aft, Aft mdill, umlluu, Chu,Alf, iffil, A0111, affillo All dIIIIIko A, III dr Adb AIIn01Nn 0, is 41110, dall Ash 911hm Al MMMm All
r au',wwwurwrurrw,rnn crcrrmrmrrmm�nm �.mon1AuIAuammu
«��l;I GYdN�G6VWd6'J�;WI,ffKk�((�GR�16f�B�f4lKffd��(.f(IfFI PPRIR('R(fff(f�if fff flN(S�I ILiG(dfJY(,(f(Wl 41ff(fff(tG;'F4'�l Sf4TAVk1 1YJNGU/.hN(SO;G�V(�SVd4ifllViVllpVi�S9VdV6VdV01Vi?�9VMf6M4C^G'NW6fOf01fklGAJ(64�uGkNl(,yAVi<ffi4�ut(6�dd[�IM1'JffAillffOmlIXtllf�l�liti\IImIiM1lnlf6Vdlhff�llNfflffPllrRlN1(a!'dMfifff641fftlHhrcfAIINNW6ibIfWN�W1!Ii1W141W0YO11WW!9Ntl�nt4UNO6NUNON�1Wi0JNtl!rbNl.U.rcfiS
�^^...
RI
�.
/ KIN Wa
w b a 6
.« I
toot-
. f 1
1! 1 i it � �'' '
a INN
IWI
1111111 1 15
cc y+ Q 1
CL
>, r u 1 a r G rem r y,
MbNk m
® w °III s pry'
w j lar �1 �
cc
xi 4a
, n u f {
a LI,
U < w a 1 „ 77557'1
Lj
co
i
i
'�
i p
LL
Il�r.
101
s � I OR an 10"HHOM,hill", 1111111"
R< too
o < � n Ili P �' r,y'�j m'mti„m, se.cr.�,*c�aw,G.w'� wmPX Pawwp.�
min,: Alf, Aft nuour, mnmm, aft, 4111111, mlmlum, mfr, All Aft, da mll0lmn oull11111L gym, 011 AM, 91001M, Aft INN,, A1111, dm, AR, AIRIVO doll, aft, �pNIMRM'rt m's,, Al, 0,, m iVPo M1hi duiIii dhi 9111111111, gh als ilb a!ta S, dhh 111b, 1911,
;i ri rrrr rr� rrrar�«na nlmmNU�wmmmmwouswuoawuuwwomumnuirarrrrrMrr�«rti-✓urcmwuauumu wwmuuuumrw rr urccrc rrnrca uuuu'aeawa roeeeno urmru �.rc eocm �u.0
�
vi��aarm�aaww�rr�uumrcrmw�r�raemr��w�s�ru��cmwrr�fam�r�r,rcurc�e n�am
IN
i w
i
�.,.
urma+wrrwsr srw i
i
r
" � V
e
u V
WJI
� r SIG
e �(
"
/ a
rc
IL
CL
co
Zi r
j w4 e,9 tea ' w �,I
.""
� f ter
o — "�, L) q��,qi:
o i� "W�1{.NWIrF :,.....mow m._.e.,_......_ .—w-� _-__-
.. caI` Ir
r 'rr �
r I^
�4 W
co
IN
IN
14 w4m
i
c
d
i a �
n I�f�sNl
rr
i% IWIF
If
-wJ *
a�.
r,
e
w g�g fr
r=dam.e a rTwsh r
wp.
j
i
rmma 110111, 11111111110, muumw of ,uumom, Aft, n, mouuou, dft Ah, ,uuu10h A% iMllifi M, Mh, AN A& AM'M'm am wV,9'', Ar dr allffiur iffill, hs[[[ mIG', Ab Ahl ) dllIm A dos mail @i All PoUft, d1k M IIh fib Vli lk Ahlb sh,
��nra„ ,
AQIOwwwwaeu«rr�',�rrar rr�rarr�rrarara rrr�rr rr;�rrrN�ar/n�r aaw.wraa?k✓��i�GKbrrtwv'�f;�4Nwrtuou�waiv',umuNar�Nttmraa�lrrarw«��r��ruraarunrartr mmmm rcmm r «rrrtrxrrdrr arkham�art�!u�mawarmrnanununummnRr�uwrc�u.� Ua�w;w
frr tix�+I
._ ...
w. Ih k m h1"tla"RR9„1 , � � %«���.
y
�*' U, 1"^liI I
i
�
f
4
N
AW
J
A MWIS ... end r°m mam.0 w p
r .I wr Nrmn a WM�neG*., °� +
C' J rw WL)
I 1�qt 1 ai�e, a e� '� f aYt 1, ,�;��., ro,�� I 0
j
VY,
0�
/ N
r f„ bn aauGw a �peL, ,r- ., 0
Y R) t a” I a
!� f (�
�G
a„� �.A9U9Yb0.M0 „E I cc 0,
00
� . .. w m
4, 60 � ` ryo � �r »t
�... y—''
ur lb LOS
N IM, M1111-1 (s r
s
xm'a N L�awwuw 4 ) �+
i 6 _ wv.
•'' -�, � a ;F.4�Y, b "'°4'k .. IM AIpM AWA91@YLLW "� .i 'r �.w'�� ^i^,,. , 'N11 �,
� � � .,.d S,.� ���..,.m✓ � au.,cU iva � �_,JI '+y�{.��..;., ✓,FY�S�mr�'YIA �' .. �"C �:, �,
VioryWIN'I
l,/ N
j i � �x r'..;? �• =� r �"" ° F"'! r��4th+ � �� � � .: ,,.,_,��f ��
' � _ � ��I�. �'�l rraram rrreq>darr � -+�` r„�„�` d ..�'•c� �
�' t
jax
i
i
mrat nmoilw olsmiF Aft nAuls ft, miemma, ANY 111111, AnhWk 101111111, % n901Mi, 91111, Am AN, mmllll1111r o All APNPo A At alb u1010nONr Atllllllllf ull11111llo-1111111111111111 ah Mk uIIIllPr 1111I111IPG A at All M11 ill l ififtf 6111, 11111, d0O 911 fifV I1110h,
' firr f dW rcmm rrtr!!aww' flOOffNOR6IIBO IbVANNNNOmUOo4RW6WOW,P4UIUNNO1Wuttaurtt n .,rcuttaa MAI4AmwuuoNm! 0 M n
//�(PG(AJ2d:J�946�LJf(4!(rIJ�W�//�f�fpf6;W4Jfaff(,PriC�fda�l�rdfWNwiMl�ff dfkxrl kr Hala4rMfl 4K�fr�H,(a!!�1(�PPdAa10(/(vif(a(NfSNIfiNPAf,M(Mf!SIR((MG4iSS�9NWW6VIN96VQ6MViNGwUVV6dbW(JUOUVUW/b�/�ba(W(�Nll6'dWlllP6fARNUfOSfd(N6bfdNiJrt r;
W
elk
FA
5.1
9 Mp Yy`�
I i i
:.r
t
f i 1
In �I
wl
All
i N
r u
e r N cr 4
ix
w
cc
a
ww
Ai
fa.
MT.u�tl� ��.��li �14
My Y Au
G F. *rMrwW+r4I '"�Mdyh V r f T �h
aY'�M1°m'Nf PWW p�
rc�„ 11I 110111�1 ,Immlo- I INN, d1h "Wal, "m 1mmlr. 1111111111, mmNlo 111011111, almtlloo, ah, Ah An AMO mmmm, da, Wrmm fib hSt aft hhdo1m AM m 'Nm MfV m » mllMlllllr� � n�ilf�i � NNM ��NM ulM l �IH'Ifi
�(Of/'>( (i l(If' (ffIfff/NNIf Gf fI� I�dAnlf/N%!N(4dl/Ifll(Ni(✓m'(tl.nNFtf4NHttHIittrtIIIIIfIiIIIfNN116111flIIM1IIIMtiiYI�IN116111tlflNtIIttNIIkNNi{NfiS((lf(f((ffi(offf(ffif6Nlu'Y�ldW6t(tIiNWYhUNWN119WU0MAIMAUSftllf6NttOfflfNNk/lu'NNfN;NFfNIfIfNANNNffINf(R((MNIOINIt01YN14MNi1111W11!WtlMidWbl!mFYNMUiGfoIIWSIIVNIdIaUfNWIN:tI(UII4Nrw161WUUININUd44YleIVFNIM14141411111xrt { mrt nrtrtrtmparttmmatttw nmawnuu'uu
AWNfNINNNFV(6N.NNfN�rtN fWWIN Nv4(NWfSflblffUlOfN'NNfbWl.Y
G
d
I �
rt
f a tt, d
a
I
i
��' A 6 � w !�, I� ✓ ,� 1X111 ",�"
.................
'Woo CT ad
0
00
z 0.,
WC
� I 1
' ,b YI ...... a ad "":�
m.a
J _
�� " 1
41- C14
co
Uji
lP
till
.,,, ..
i ( r
d
fl
G
1
i
1�^�..:�1pjP....M�.l G +�Ch w m rl��. TM� ' 1,61
r
� ..r.
r
� a7rr,,, I,vnl n.rk „ flrr V
60 CAI J33H3 3396.
i
//
,y
i
i
f wNlflar° M, ish, Ewa. Innmv, M amp»alft glum fift fKU<Xmw dmh mfft All, All A, Id1, uift m1110llOPr do A1111111Pr m11111r dliM1 milli A olllllwfut mlMl @Ild li1111l6 Of 1111116 n»I�fOlr dim fill IIiffP m1111I1r A uliii 91I1, nl�llllll dllV A Ifit, M 1110111
f (('ll f f e' 61(61( FOlUNdN IIf ll' If(f' fefAIINIINlttmllfmllfmufihlAflllffl(fffffNlr flfl111iNittlMilMfififillilM1llfR01111fAIfNlhlhlllhlOS111Y1N1ll6M611llNININYINiINIIfMININNUMIdf!dSttGlUttbfS4NlNFUIWINNVNNNhVfdINIJ,JdIIOUfAIUIN(S4hUttNIVK!fNIUdUdIWNU4IGWAWAW01WMfmIIIrtAUIttNItlmM1ii mdm
//dJf((k�BNLIe!fu�N(IkfMf9MMdd1l1F1J1SfAfNUnIXFu6WMaJa SfAVWOJfklN6fa[fl/Y,'JJ�wI/wdPfffJffdufdnsPd((NNdBlAdNfPk6Y4,fMkNPA1PN,U6Ndm6tt46fi0 af9S IIIPINIUIi,iNlfdhMffN{Iaff6fnN!fK(g.((fP�cwMrMfm l�f a1 Illflf
J �
kO NA 133""339 y "
OH
r
v
o �
r I att
a r �
is
r a ti
j -;�'..:�I. ,,.... L.� �.s:,..?�•---� fir C ''� � � W �
,.,8�,gyp
J
1 t
w yy
...._._ , "Ord
z
u,.aINA.».�• .r e 'v�y: ��.,_ facer —ii "+� q�C � �J ..µle /y� pp� Iup .U/r �`
• b d° i ad �
Cc
UT
LAI
cr CO)
r
.:,
ure1 a ,
w co
lop
M. w
r
i
' .._.M.. r �h
, 1 �f
rmro'�
���ru""amFm�rl laaurt� Y• � f
kl
i
afft d40, Aft hift ANY, d1oll A% 9111d Alk M, dKk Alt M, AN Huh 19I11� ANN, uol�IllOr(Ahl, liiffillll( Ahil AN, luMill 411111 Ah A( uIIN% a, at dill, d1hi 6I1k phi flN Id1h 911f AND US lilt MIN, fib 11IIN1, 1& IS
rurvdlmauMrNryMUm wFY¢
flfK(t(✓fRf6(411UfRfftN!d✓f14KAUWidINNff iNfUlkdMV6ff6JldHJMd(4ufINF,'4Klf!UKf(Vd(V(MJIUf✓!fGvUk✓FG4K✓n!(4F�N(tiMN(f(ff"Mu'MGNf4VttJ,!!UlNINf(�ffdUNd6UfsdfNllfAIVNIIhINI1QMiNM1111NNIINyWryNi(N(NUNU(e4f6(CSMN'tl((a(ii4(AffU((d(M151(JII6INNM1IIdldldldldldldldldldldldldldlttdfldlfidiffffNlNfffffff(PofIllflfdlfffikAfffifffIYAFfIMIIfRANM1rvINIdIhIM191\yylltlylllNddlYNh111111(NINN@ttl16(Wd!/lttdfNlUiNffHIXONdfWUfPAPA4/4:NkvilGlfK!dfMlG{¢(GyMyyIIM4Nifef.
l
k
x
Ilr
r
i w tl tl r
y
Irplo
lie
'fo.
n f m,m6MCr+smM„AUVmuh
upg
ug iht
CL 0.
uj Y
®r
, L cal
. z
��r e✓
i
1
p I
,�. NtuU66Ad J' t F d„e.u � � b pp �+ ��� �I ”+'4
4k 1
CC co
yyyyyyy
u 1tld 5W Y�OAdSM m. -IL
OD
mamma ( f s 1 I0
+ � uN iT o`
,n ammrdsw m nm�nro'.a
fc
C �IJ
%
�£ .�.,..
1'ig 71
} M"
rk
I
n
wr
I�t�r�'MYL J�.�13'H�Y 33�
/ ,w•m��� �w vW��.� �w
l
d"A 191% h0 b,AIN,,ANN Aft Ami, Ah,All, 4111 Ask, All Alml A, A iiiilllR,1111unm1ul mew swill,di 111 affil mI ( ram ullllllh uIIIRll da ift 1111iiiifili 1mll10lh,n lh, A111,as, iffill A fit III Ab M 110 II S Ilk
:; "' "' 'r r rr ruuawuuuaiuuUruruuircrwnuttuarwrw'iia�wrme«errmnrr«rarrrarrt rr"rraarNwvwr,wtiuraaauawrva000amuxu�anrcvway
.(�/'AM/�Fs(�GUVtiC;(u(G6SfrK�W6P4J�MfN(IXKM%��Cfk�C',WaGp�upN lfm6u�f!�fG(aWa�frnl,5P0 ff PI�(r nr�i((�:�fbrr(raH�'d�KdAII(/rl fi(fAllHlMlM�fArf,Pik��9fhlttM1allttlUffM11#ttfdddd0w,f�!fIRO/KG!(,t(f rw<iStG�r(r�fn6{dfkGfC;fKIMWWWWNVWWO�NNNNN64PfGf�FaO"rdl6d!!�O;J'FaF�h(f0Gu(MIGP IIdA<K1efRUfWIGNUNW7fuldlufuluSth
p y„.
i
Is
MA ro
P
w IT
k°
._... 6 t
tt
tml
u i
cc
r ,
r
/ r u
W-
.�"..�� :� .
(t wit
w CO
i
Cc
( C 00
LI 14
Fx
I
"i"..
g, >,.o
r ro�
_e
l a �
i
i
i
i
i
gL
IN
,% m h "Ilk Ab uft 111110111, dh ift a AM A"gift Aw Ab mlllmm, fib, 11111110 a h, AN, Ali,, A uft 4l1111 dill, [, m i i11l11�u oli i ui ull10ll11llu dIiiIhOir A fib, A h¢dl a illl 111 M d16MI Ab Il l a Ali, All � ilk
IlINRMIPPRP41URRPU11U141lFfIXUII911'TIKhIiY�NarON[a NotttFifnTM1\U'IRrth\iUPOIUNhlMh01\YINNIN.OAWllP\YY R'bNONUMN/YI
/llifV.liulfki�NHf;SRJ(6(f�h�fi(dliR(f(�nnl n�P(�f�mfR fRlrm(A(mmfF(U(Kfrt((ta(lydk«if(f«ilIN ifdnl nr&Ya(n(u;<((f(Gi(khIGNGPNYn(IIfA�F(Ki{N6r✓(RAPWIPNP.IM?(GNIV'MVMVI1NIUMf4iMA41V4U4N1VM'9�StUidBCUPKAf4/GfONA47NUINGF'YdJOnWUfe(fdRPIIR(nlWtl�tlfffrlllllff61ff61fh{IU0ImfNfffNfc!«!rl«rKdn'n(l�fo/cif/RNiNIaM1lthaYNImN010101010101010101NIIImNN0WHOl/Aldo Vat
I
Y",
OPP
CL
`I
l�1
w � a •w i ,.. tom ��� �I i ! �� � rw
� I a, awri�1aw¢ar �I
lea �
�m- �I � _,. �..
✓ "
J t ati,m ' Wk£wo ... IiAb m w'✓> .wv—�� ,
IGri LL � yg
o 'r F o ^w mmm 'lull r t— .� ..�– ... y�.w.1�'" .wlly-
G µ �y _L w^ �!....,. .�.�m,. .IyyL 0
� „�w... M µms,
w
II 4.m
co
L, axv NIA, lda.
Ir
� � I ITX I s q UBN1 R ..` � 1
g
N tlf W� �r
�,rt
rv,
w Ism mm
JI .e I�ah Im II��
�1
o
v
/
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
9
i
i
M1IimIR ah ft Ah aft Aft, AM, A, Amh ANN Huh 41m1 IIffillf of AmIll A, alk, 1111111111 ah, at Mh fib uuulllio� A ib, 9I1111, is AM A; &I dIO%% 40 Ab A Mb IS 11l1b I&M, dtillll 1, 41W 4% 411,
IIINGIUNOFGIWI/a'u,IWI/a'u,IW6NGiUNIFN1fUIGII1fiGllfifVllIFIFM Ifi I tlOGttGIttGIGIM146MllV:YlWI011
//91iffGYG1fflFlffffffifffM(�6ffGfffGf('r;IG1ffffNG�dN�M1Ufi(MfR(P�(6f('(�HG6UI{(r�lf((KK((6YPrt�!/dG\f«4ffr(�L�ig(;(yfU2PoKd,N(((NGi�fCi�rc"GWNA(IQoVMOC'60uWWKPNIRfiV6U1VIXID14Ub1ti1VS7ttON4'u�1�4,;fS46S�N�fQftlfudPAf�(f,�PNfufGCfMU"IXfififfOtl�uIIIhaGu9(rcdnhaM1ah(4frtfIufiGK,KrtrNr�rfclarllr�rF'FN�a:�ffmffk�f(dliattdlllllelnullNNm9IIlaIDMW14fGINNNNNUwdNm�auuNUfNm6uNIi4aIllWNfwhWi4l0�
MIT
jib a I
IS
IBM:!
��N 3 1�}/i I � ll.•. � W J � At,4l" i6 d �Y �� , Y' )� �.
1
/ r �
i I
d
r
u
tt J t
CL
I _ '. �CL
14 ` ' ,MOW:
f tixx
Tnmw= �� �..m,4� i. t �""t .�C J�, w,•,431,, �'� I �, wb 4,e'
„
i
a
f b,a
.r ;
1�I�W aG F.I rv�
i
i
ir
a
i
i p
9%, A%, oRh Aft "ft ,f dew, di ft Iift h h G�� 11h,, d1h, Imouuml�l �1�11h, mui�1lof I�lol, 1111116 all dill do, 11111lb 11111h, A nib m111li1le Ilk IN& ldh A aft d1b loll[ 96 9b dIIll oilt 1111111101, 96 is 111,to
0
i
i
I Is
_...
9 q Jr irr
"
w, INVO"IrPO "
wi
CL
UJ
P
lJi
i
C
�
f
rim- ,rlu W IM
CC
.,
� ,.....
`I 1,.:J�
a r y
. a " r9�
�m �.. qa.
AL
, . .
MI t '
ZMID la —3 L'—
r`r
r �
j ��
1
v loci c�-,��rr,r ;•� ,. "Z;' r�, �. .;�� !M � P 7d aT C .I 'V:v !,." ,ka "r °��tl �i�
im
i
1I, 40, 0 1110 40 40 1110, mII11,, 0 00 Ns * !u V, le 0 0 is 40 40 lb!61 lill, 0 0
ffti(flli(ff Yfl"/flt,ffff(rl((f%%l/fY/.4!(!((iNNIANi(K(NRdfif!F//.iMlli((QM1(Ndl0111}INIIUIIGM1[511RN@ONIIINYiNIhII9\IYdIFNIIM1IIM1IIUtflllil(rtf(,tl((KN'A/�'AF(f/rntd(dNRfR(f((ti(f/Nf((N6Nf(4FWNk0A9NN!N4fNNNNNUl6(RINYaulOIVK/khY(.IV:Vf(6KsVNfY"If(f/i£Yl�(rv/kFf(44FNdIUNf1M1UfNf(410RMdiU{NNnN}IFI`NFONMSIWA"Nol1flVINIIMMON4M14110ANiUNNA41Ul4NG1NIINlIA!4W!M�IIrtfUM1rtnM�/iff6YYY11 «M1ttrcttM1ttmY mA NmIR°Am\111flm111NF1Wm
�./dN(PGfNMffNfR/9fK ffnf KY(K�t (ffI ;ltl(
1
f�
MI It It k It W A I I k I w It K' Ma a 4 m b a N A I my a �w
o q
1
i
r u
G
yeN N F ,
RIOT �j
1 u ] �
11171 Z
Cy,V
I
0.
Lill- 4
9 �
rI
M
Ix t
to u
6 co
j � IIII TTY r � Y,
1 �w '0
° T1 a °
cic
Y a f
da �
"� 11 L-I
-0;0
T? it,
}
f
/0 d
'"� r bNV,wrIIN,11''N�a ~'•,. ,�., „ I .i r„rI i tea.. �""" ✓m�^, d q!r " e� a'� a '19 fIY�n{
G
._ ew
� � Y ww udwvwi}wwv�u,a �rin�i�m vaxrr.�a � .�II
Y'm lis is Isew is aib a it A AS u112 0, so do do 15 do dh do N dD lb X41 d1h1 li14t, 111 111, ej a (III 0 S 0 410 1 0 IN 1�I�b�1) 0411, all, u~ 1V,
„/.nttnFalUI IGbUUGYIv4UMNfiGVXdGUttGfiGiIMtl/GrfONIGVISUfGI/IXIIU(Of((uflAlKfU!IpF4111f6'l4YmUXpaUGUUNk'AM111(I(NIMSIUM11U49WIWhAIIIIINI491M9tt4NNWttUiYINMUIbtUNNMNf4%W,dIUfUNGiUfNiVNWUIJNNNNNNNNNiNUNINUNNN1014G61NNd➢nWPAf4f(4hfNil46ikt,4(((Jf(tCi(filINMK!NMIN4SWlMI01AV111611101hNN010NWN010NW4N61VfISfflSfflSffIS601N1(NNilf!ff(UA!d(Nf4NKNN4NNM(4NN14YM'(/(M(f/Fi/Fn4e!16(ifNf4K4N1((:4:lfUi(Hff((VlVifvdNiVRGSflt64'(fi(Sfttlfllf((f4ilfYliSNfff(NfhUN@IIUf(NfUfi01MNf(4nklll.
l
cli
9 k,v
i
iw �. i
ak
OR
LU
�dIrt" u&1 kceo-
Iu
I
�IIlu�l
i
� o
i
f;
H
arm,!n�eu�a�r-
i
i
irf LU ICS,,
aft " f
Z
u l � w
2 w
LU
"I'll -�T"7 -1--- tr 'r I,
IF-
NI
�
r 03
CL
IN
0
oft No, aft ollft A4 A9wu ift a Alk A It dlhu CMb uCh Ab A Ak d1k AN ANN IIft 9111, 411 91 A wl1ll11lce % a im dh a dI�i a 0 IS + O AD 1) IS 010 ' W of is
rmemdrer surc�rr«urmrrmrcit ��a urn rcrc cMOura«wrrrrFrruu �rr!rr�hrhnrrmrururuwraurcaaa,<avcrauNNNUUU�wrn!Mmmor'�woaurmrurwourwrunarumovrrwuvwoxwroarauum unuuumrcwuNlN4ua¢aaww�wowrrrrnru¢er;rruNrurmumwurarmmrm m mmrmIwr««hI mrrrrarmxnmuwm rmm—how;aaanmm umoa omwuwa,
ii
r�
i
i
i
hN
It
IL
CL,
,, .. Z
t m� L,
126 :wx
L4,1-
IS
,
j
+ qy --
' v
rill
r �
«
i ... ern rrvrn
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
%,r e 4i1% fik t: A ofilt 1111m oft iIf& 1111% A d1b, A A Mb dh &I 11110 A is Ilk Ilo-gOIINIIOf uUIib dlb tuil 11111111, 211 a I1611l1 41111 11111% a dw G di it) 4111 11101, 0, 01 0,
=iGlFlfi4fhilfX�flNfi(NYAfi11lflllfff111lllffilfflfi((flfft{I(@I11ftl(IIIIIIIIIIfflGflflNllc(lk(f(4fultKM1dIXiflF(fifilllYfRIIINMI((VNIdIWdWN16tVNfVMN!4!fPNM1VfNNNNNNOWNIINWINWNIWNWUf?AVN6iJNiAIUMffANWN(NYnUI611GIN1t41i6fWNINIlUff1VWNNUIXMViGNtNfIUitlN1UM14ff41INdNfiGhUfNN(UIXifNiNUfUffOAGiNfN4NINNtlNdIWIlOM1N1l611UMWNIN1PItlINIIN611N61Nh1UNg60hWGYfiNNNIWfYhNdUh4WaGlUrtbNMIdUrtUG'I�IAUNIU^tttlIXNNfWAAVhI(IIMh01Xtt0FN'fiXIll011vvveXM1VX111146v4mrGginX809@aa mimnWnufe
lKN
k
j I k
z
...
i
kis
WN
M 'I%....
P"
�.
/
/
till �.!
L
n y ,
awes
CL
UJI
1 I I 1
,
Z
� i
Ml
WW
ZT
C
0
lioINi,
i
jif
i
A% 66 Nth Xdit fib f1h Ilfilh All,, m l 111115, Ififths 1111% da 111k 111111th 0, Ab A luuoi1h uolhll Ishl A,dIll d1h,A Alk 41111 illllllo dIIh glib d111111i Ill f dl fib As 0 lIlll I lb All > Is 91,
=i%%fUUdUNMUUPYGUWWWNAM1UfINeN(AUWNUW6IMIIU�UNWUNIUINNUIW(A AMNAIIYA/,YMIU(W,5NIG11YIdU10gqWO101WAW@NOWtlW?ZNMII41140U6UWWINIGfitlIM1I(ffNl/AUUI/AdUbfhiNldidMM:IdUMdiNWifittIXKtlAUWUNNININAUNNM1KI'ffNMfNiii!(fi44f4,'dAAf!di4ff41PIMifX0.UIIAIMWMdtl IN[AOINUNUiWUW4MUIW16('dNWNWIIM1AUWU(KANrtKMUUUUINfKtlgrtbAIXUGdIGUfdpdl--WWNfUhU6WttldYMhlvbllNNUNdhIVUiUIUd;dfKialHMdW!h'!i,
IN
L I R12,
N
r
i
wT a
j w 1 0
wl
y
:m
um..
0'cr
Im
>
II II� >-
co
I
j
F-
all- .
_ p _
j
µ m,
s1 �
N
i
i
i
r
at du aft mum Alk dit dall A all ANN, dlb (uNl t MVNNN AINIh a dh SIN 1NN lNIINIIIo-A a a dis illb th A al, 11111111 0, 911, 4b 4b 411 lb 0 11110 181 a 'S ISO Aw ill, 46 Ms,N
///,l(l(A!(nllffi(i(d(IXf(nf4(ftldldlNlNlfif(pK1p(f�NpNhIN(41Nffn11(KNVMONIINNNtpRINIWANWRNIilN44fNffWN;1WNlVf(ViiVIIWO(l(�NM1NIVffWNAkJ'h%ASiYNIbAUfvdIaNNU<IWIMNWdIMIMPl0UIMa811811pNNiIbINilpNilpNilpNliilfplpNldR/baMtlIlPllMAflF/llfMl M1fIaNOWNMnI IIIIIIIryIIIIhIAIIryRIN—MM144tufiNNAnN. av[N.u.rcNNNNNNi4aaNU4eN N,1MunuuWWW!UWWaMWWWOnmmnvxNNpovwurnwvdwii.
i
J �
IN
ra
i
i/
�A
1 v:(
p{ !
�.
l
c �
F
" .
F—
0 w
0
1` °.A 1 J--] J U ...:C
f
,W
Oc
Mo
W
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
0
i
�� , dry IS 1161% 161h dllb Ab 1111h A;A1lth a d1i 111 a A 411 1111101,a A I d1lh d1w fb 41W 41 GO dw dw 40, 491,t 401 111, 1* GO ON I O 4 ' 0" 111
{//0ilUK4AnWUleIWOK011WttIWlIMRIOWAMWll4R91M1hL,1UIlUIW141141 I INORMWORKNORIhifirffiffhIIhIIMUM,WWKINfllfiNd(UNTIlllNlll((IfIIIIIWMEIhIIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIMRfi"IRIlS6Mif((tlM MR19f(NN!ufffff
L
I
m k
W oMO
YA
„f .., �M j��wl "� III n✓,p��w.�� +W95 Cfi Sa b4tlyry
CT
wr
9
cc
CL
Z1,ox
IS w
dC
OD
/
I
k <
IL
i
' ill°'1°II'INIII'�ll'11,11 1 w' a
d
/ u .J
dot6w dim A�M% aft alt Id1mfu1 A%111% 61h as uuiiim at,A IRS,duct,All a11h 1111191,All uu�a Al: S illi1, 9b olk A dit, ill dilk al,Q 411,4111 All iAlp 41, S GO (IM (11b ob 14 dw olb
�O/if's r�r 'r' �rrr�r�r' r�r «rrrrwraaGwrr:mwwrrr� urrcrcrwttrcmm wanrcrcmnm<mawuwwaawaw�rcaaawowcammmmwowwmNNNNNmwroowoui�rcNmwmwuuummwrwoa�armorrcaea�rrnwovrteraawmannMmma�auuu w m rrr rarr rr rwurm�auam xwwsu�u4mawu nrwN
GVrff�U4'HGH26Adwfdw(UaOrtJI(YNNdwNffNM16 Y/�IfdwPKdkdw(UKdVFanV(lIkfilll/
/ g
/r u � Iw Wm � � � � VI�tl�IGI�fi1M•'Y bullslm�l ,
Al
w iirr
/
r
r .� ,/..r ✓,r�WP7 «r nv�/ r � r/,-, r r rr,,.. � /; ��r iJ J�(r'.
r,
,
p
Inn 3
l �
------------------- _-----------
s mmlNm Im mb A A m b mb A m�h di INNI h mm Ab MR MR AM AN Mb do db ob As im do Is IN h !I ' 1111 viii SAN 11 W do 10 sp Is is it It 40
..;raw r «cm'rrwNrtmrrcr«mce«c«wr�crrrura'a'a'mw;rrw;«mrrrrarmmrrr««mrrraurrcm'�rtr�c«mrcmrrrtrrmrntic uNNanuNvNixao nrm� r aurmarmmarcrtceramrcawmaarcwNm�mv wuiummrrur.rmurrurrcroaa rraammaroramummmmmmmmuNOmuNmmuNammuwmumuaaowwurcurcorcrcwan;muarararaeriar,�uuwwrmuw,rmumnauamunouuwaamauuaawwwmwiumvrcr
j'.
i
/
/
/
� t � � b � �, 'r( �' ✓ ,l r,��00 r�/e i%/'� �'rr / //%/ //�%%/iii/.iiii�/ ///i//i ?
o /� 1 � ' �f'° � �'?��,r,f�r,''� '/'ll�fiHyf''r / r �% y/(� l ✓ i(/ J
Ott
N3340, 3HI'
" ,""
Igg
1,
l
/ t
y ....m._ - "... _ ------- �. ..__._
1
r(iml alk ift a Ask ob a A alter milk m9 it Milk IIIIIIIIIIIII, 11I11Ih o-Alb 0 Al 4111 iiii9b a a 4111 a A, A Bill ai (D a At 0, di (a a II) a G 40 OR) dl 411 i Mil, is 0
c a wm mw wn wouu w�rcuman«r nr ««errr ,rcs mnu rwammnhwnumuArarcaarrarrrarrrrrrrrar'muarromwuoarmmo am wnnv ruuviorarar✓waarrrrrowariaaunrr;ruw.arrwrrauruuwu!n�,«uaaau urcouo rccu�c'ruuuttac'rsur«ro rKw✓�;
D
ar
r
� � '�IiM:MN7l111IM�"PoNdV�VIIV � r �
�" W �� gyp: �� 9 1 +�
„f„ ,.,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .,. .,,,,,, ,,...
s
,✓ %/ r >.,� r„r� ,.�Cr���l ��� / ///.r,,i/ r/ /,.,t K/�/% 7 %i ,�c,, r r ��,o, ("
,✓ r �/, ,r , f o /,, h � �, r /�, l//�f SH /r /s/rii r /� rr, , !,, r,, M�
,G =r r,,,...,r� �J ,�/,,, o.,, rvm wmu ,; 1 / „r ;rr i /K �� r,^« /. �����i/ r� ✓,/,,ri�i,. .,,,c„�i”
,;, '�� i! ? r..,,, trr //� �,rr /Jr/ ,,,,� y, i;�,r;,,; ✓{/�i/i�N„r��/ //,//r "� ���r�`�r '„,,,, , � /
i
// (/N,.. � ��I. .�(N",. ,,,,,,,:. f �,l,u % r/J� „I %�/n�..u;✓rrr g,r /// ri 1,%i, „`;'/a/
/ J I. Wj;
//�^,�r
o r�// ;l ;i/�,,x r�� rJ�„ ,:i; f l r�//,,//l�' l rr ✓Il��%rr :f,.:1 / �l r��///r / j'� �'ra�%r; '.s,
G v,/,/� VY,, �1i✓�iAY:,.�� ar /r/%ra°r: � Lrc �rr...� /,{y/ /%„j3!`i% �% r�KI J ,',,;, �llr "`
(// / r.,,.r��l�r, �r/�r�rr.)'.l /� ,,rl�,Yrr//�r ri/ � / //,J,rT I! : ,,, ✓�'.,. /F V/..,,, „l /. , �..,
/ r / ,,,;,✓ / .;�/i , /r a„/ri r r rr rcrz.✓✓rr �� r
l � �/ y r r r 1/ /�rri ,,./„r, g un -;r„ /a�.. ,rf w,rc,...rr, '✓, ,,
yill%I�rri
El
r
�`�� /� / �� � �r. r�'�Hf irn//� 1 ,N � r R G �,, t H , (rr y✓r "a� i � ..
J ;
p �� �� % ✓ % rl:: � �/% ��Ir Jr��rt fly r��:r I� � /«6 l',r rci Y` +%l,l��9M%�7 Jr%°syll � i Y�/ r'9y
r
a3J1�i/G0%Ni! 171"', I�yr ',�f rK`W6 Ji
till ,��'r r gj rY„ rlr t IW,N°s1CCV�f %MrlrG
� IIJ �1rn �Ir% � !�{'/�,�� l V - ri 111 pay r� � `�
A J r r j,,. i4 ,r; l 4,11�il'1 W Jt � "f„c iii// ,,rfuar ��r
�y`
,t r/l J�Hr Y re a r awvr /% rc r
fJ%�1 °
l�'
r'f,�
// / !p r...:« rt'% ,i/,r �"✓'1 i N %C�rF r ll��//r�'11'"a/ itr/�iK�, � �6 �f ��I� �pg',�i r'�' Y ��1q,
rj/�r ,`w ���C;;i%r///r r:.H Jr r� rC/�r �i�r ��rvr �k,��',,Na,li �6'e' ,�l(wl �; Ifl// !%/,� �u-ur /«�✓v� �,r� '.ry ,,. ,Il�r,,
r/ 4l K �i`i11gfG ��K%1l/// � lal ralla�uwr,r Pr � �r f� � vw*,wwrc�aPoO.ro ;+roarc,>nHii4«;arrrl or�,
r
i
r
/r
r
a
r
r C r
1 1
Y
r
/
K
i< K I 1P
41/ yjrCvA.
�al�ljrl e
top i
% //K/�
III � n
//
o lroll
J9�!r ! 1",r s r' r ,: / f ( rJ�r„rr���,�/r, r�r�, r ri ! /Jlrrr ra r hill . l�n f��r j/tea I ✓i” ��;
C r rcr m gwNm,. rc "
/i
f 1j "Aw ��/, r it, V U ir11 Y b i� M^a/ n I H 1,u r ..�✓ H l r �i�rf,,,,(�r��w� w r�� 27 r
;uru
la w, r n,rr
%%//, All , Y' 'M burr ruw is//r� I�rCu✓rl",r; II 1 it�f G
p N ! r D a I 1 / 1
f/ r „ 1 (, ,Yr, rc ,
„, /, rrr 1
"”
�a
r
/
r���a Wryrrrn rrrr � r �
ds7�Fr �di,I%�rffe�''
r
r
JJI"�r a,:��bi,..:r t,i�Krm-0Uu/�/�'rrrrrl/r/,lH�nrnwr n�xM ��
o rJ.r�
r N
tl
q
_, --- --------
0
J?
do 11 dfw & in a a a 110 40, 110 01 1111 (51, o 0 0 ON h' 40 01, 110 0 0 (1 0 Qb 10 0 61 40, 40
1
1
J
i N'VN1011%M)V1100
jj
r ,
i
hr
w
I,
r� r
/
N
p
iU
u dl
/
� � u
5
f .:..................-_. -------- -------------------------- ._........................................................
I
0
0
��� a Ob Ift AW 41 'Is 411, 111 Is G 16, 01 410 a 4140 all dui 0 4w, 11116 40, 0 so 410 (11, 0 , IINP 40 01 l j 10 01 0 0
��/irrnarra� �rnnrurnrrmt�rranrrrrrmtn�rcrcmmranru«a�warrrar«naurama+✓sar✓rarcurrs u�uruumusasaaaaaaaaaarcaamrnrar 'rrrrrrr�zrrsrarrn mnmmmm rmnr�ir«««rarrara;iirranx�rrr rcr NNrauaurmcraattrtmmmtarrurrwrn�mvrnr✓srw'�nu;rrar«Wrw.rrwranucrcarcarvaw rceruurwuuuuaaameaauuMnaaammurvr�mrtarm ,
'viL4k60(NrtPINMf�NdR ld
Mr p
r iWµ fl Mq
W rk5
j r
r
«rr r
r
r
„I,mr
01 J
Im
�.�._._ .-..-.---
............... ------------------------ ------------- ---------------- - ......................................... %%
i
mmmarc ,u da mn r A, ab m afar,dh Huuui1(t er a ru il(k 0, m IIIk Ab A AHD all[[ A A Alk iffill dik at a a 1111,,All, a a A a' lb fil 0 AD f1w 111 G 0 ID,
!iif;u;m� �u amusermmuaurnuwm rrunrcavduunwrauu�rcrt��r�rmi mrmw kircrrcrtmrtamwrcwwrcn rr nrcnartmmrrtammm unuww na n rcrrr x aaww�;xanxeuuuuomuwmwumoouuww wanmuu�uunuroxnxxxxxnurcmr xxxmmrxm mw xmnvuuwuwuwMUUUxnwouMn
f
l
m w,,,,,,
'MREGdip�V1W]"hlgU9dVp
o
I
„
i
� ,
i ''J �i U� �1/�f� �c�j V�� �! � �rl��� %� ;/'f ��/� / /➢�ilf' '�' � � � ',a
1 Jcl
� ➢��� ri o�r✓ri+ , �� ,�rrc i f i „ �f / x f /l��G r i� i
� ��� y ��c i �� �1Q 9 /r / �/�� � /r�/�//fir �r / ail 0 � ��➢1"
1
� �" ,���JU�r✓„„�. le ��,.,ii,.� ,rrc m i11r?�1k�V V, ,✓' y 1..f, n �,�h. ,.,, ury/ ,ll�� �a(��f
........,_. --- -------- ....., ,,. ----------- V
�G�(UiWRf(K�((Nflffil(mfftlfifKfPMffQ11Hf(fA(ff(4�IIIM/'AYdi(<l'Ilff(/t/Ul6fVF/ffQhll(f(IY'INIfR/ANAGl516(/!!/4hWl�df4NF�IfWWF9L�bVN4iUWfVOdL�UN!WNNN{�NORAQAtlMiltNdiMNIImNwA1NiNNAWNPIWIUI�(�NOUIffUG�AININUIfINRttI%xvarmaR� o ¢nnsmm�snnnnhn mmtt!!num'm'm Mum�weamuuw�romwvuu buuauvuwuuroaren+unxmn xxarcc+nmrvr m rx mmmununvnunxumvxvnmvnmvarvmu�;vu
l
� �np8�iq�V9'Ma d2&19W ,,,,, ,
w'
1
i
r
Mal %f J
�4 iii l f
i a
i r
Y
�H�ryy� M w b u
��
i
j __ ...
r
i
j
i
g, mI A At 69% A A iib aft hob A nth III Ails Abilb, dith id1w 11111, a lidt, db ka, lw a AD a 40 a a IS, do, '@o, 410 40 1 At 0 40 410 40 I'llI
�l((lili�rNK�11fif((rnff�Y�fAYM(4Ahl(4f((NM((4/Akkfff/ni(4NfA11Ufitff(fh(Nf/RnlFf(f((2Y(4U(Gll41F'/kfNfl,�4�'fffN!M1l(W4f61YdUfWU04NYS9t��NKFttu"��UNOk4�61!41tfY'Ai411111'�1111tttt0ittlmpllGlf I/R{n' �.rth ntmwuew,U4vn.eu�am!nouuerouewouu aMUxrtuauusobfvvovowunnn rm rmnn an nwmnmu!muuvouwv;v;nvrvnoorvmrvnnn�,ry nwovu nvn
r� y w �. fir` W .� VII
Im
a
a
r � r
r
l r,/
f
f
y �........... _ ----- —
I ah� uob A ulish Am A hih fib I& mlk i t A111 mift uo�l�m Ali,AM fiil 11611a A IS AS dh db dia, d1l,,0 All a 11111 411 d1b 411111 S G, 411
r r 'r r 1 'rrrr«rrw�rrrarrrwrrttrcmreriw maamapn;cxrcrru'wwuarUVUraw,'rwuulawartlrwumw�wuMww aumun wxrrwuuwr r wrw wrcrcw no-nm w, oum.�.wu+a
/p,/lUf�i�?f((QIX�;tv7fi(utlF�,'afiw(lR(P�(fr(a l�((lrrM�!f�6f�rtGrrr(nrl�lk�urrtt Nraf Sl ara(4�rRl Wb�fa(R6661�fLi 4NilfWl'�aK!F(Gia'(fVSWLfi1fi�1Sl(nhfdV@WAOfiNY6fNdi?eGUldfatlWfllUI1M1IP((?NfGiPi(/r!
I'
N,9 �n� 1Hi
o y`
f
� I
�,�YI lid
,r
I
r
'��Y IIII
t1i��Nl IIJI�r�
iV
I
1 i
r
IN� r
UL.
CL
i
i
1,
r
i
,..m. ..... ........------------------- ..___.,__-........
,
amit mural� ��in�oti�� �uu � a momi� a onuilAw % dki! as A A At ift A it, Ab glib dis 11111, db M �IIly gh A li at AIhiI 1111111,411b II S dill, a i s ON, dw ON lot
Wmm' (NIA AM IkovaimaA�i01"fgammmouramwmaw(mawwwwar'AIINA—maIwAIAIAI'AlI'i9A�INA`II w 01111mIIIIIIm"I I II AllIII,,III",
Bill .........,I
N I 31a�b H
2
yy
it I !11111 �ji
rI
IN
I ME'ellm
IN
oI
---------------- ....... ------------- ...........---------------------- -- ------------- ------------------
Mth, 111Ioll,, Aft duor w ft 1111fat AM AA111lik 1911111, 'hom m Ift Aft r Mft AI a J& allif, hiMA 11Ift ab 01100 IIIIBlof 1111111% dill Abli u01 @&l>HII 41% AS OIft, MIA 1fi@Orr 0, 11111, a ft dh A illb M da fit A 411 a
rr r 'arrrtia«rrnmrnamuaumonuemercmoom'rmrrcaarmnuurcomuuem;u rr amwrcomnu wnwuw,+ �nNVww a ��� --
�6�11(r�wrNr;Jmarm�Ga{«rr,rv,r tmr w�raawarr�rar�rrrvr�ww�arrm rrr�u�m�ia�rrw�i�r�rrarrrmmmmrrar�r�a,awaowuemno a«murr�marmr;�
e
i
0
�i
1
1
0
j
i
i
t
i
VAN
NgR
Cl n 2110
i
j
I
1-
co
co
/ N
C
i
a
i
WX ASS wir W11 amlli, immm "011, 011111, 1uuomi IM M uolooh, m>'mmk, aimA,N'm 90, mllllft Wil, ,wAnllk, 4111 AlI A& n'uIIIm ah Alit m,IfO lillil1Nr ARIM, millllllw ARtr 61111l 1 A& fi11lb 61���WII ak dvly Milk a
"' t 11(1}IIbIW@NlN%fMMK M1ttilkIXrtG:wNONNV'D9nuvp r n vnw wv uxuu x nn? ?e .., ..
If lAG6Wt UMIGia�l�l�JSG;G�IkZrwfrn�lrt�rv/fi6fma(l/addrR(IWU�Ff flNrl�VUakr(r�rrr�k.'kld<ifrkW;✓Tllr4'GN,dI'OCiIAPufArQlYill(kIA�fKN�(flM71KAINWmWVUfouWNNINGaPS4�NU+UrIYLiArr«r65lrRArrti<o} aimNwM r9iv`JU
NlfiMIT N111"', e ..f.
d
ff
r
iI �1 j
11 it
l
uul� '� Ili i
I` r
l
1
1 pJ
V
{1ff/1lflrtrx �� �� I
,r
J
oil
i
i
,
i
'o
j
E
......
i
/ � }
9
N ., �� �N� � � m��, ��N�u, ��r.. �Il�mwr ku�or� uoomN, �muoioin� N � uum�o� u�uio�l� m� iolo�lra uu101uuu �uil��nG �i� ouION�IKh u�� } fo fllln! �ti�rt ��m�i �III�Nh��qN� �I0��r,��IY�o�hl'�� ��I �I� ��V�NI@ ���� ���1rY ��I� ���� 4��i���` fb o
frr!�'(rlfKmlFri�VaAU�JrrFU'rkafr i�faNrrt(vir AOe'J%6'wFAra44�rl in.!�'1��!(�(B�6(rrA/��trlrra�a�urKe�fwi�lrara��rr(r(rr,AN��UK�rlrr lr M�rCh6GFGr1hH(fbu�l�(�P(a�'UfN(fliU6WlA�(frr((uti�raf�rwr��Krrr„rrfl�drefM'rrr,� murcm�raw�,;�rcm 'vrM'�wmm '"" ..._...
l
.w
m,
r,I R1104
lf l fc I �
�� 1 Ie lrr /c ry
i
�
a
i re C,
eN �r rAa Y r
1,
�
r//r� rr��� ����� �r r/ �%/ ,�.( r,%/rjriwi rrro/) ✓ r /4.�1 r/.�1�/%%/,r,. N
"loop r� �% f, ry/r / /�� o r r riiriii/a r rr� r� ,✓
r�aa,,,r/%////,,,I,'! r////.`/„�,rr r % �✓ ;�0�r�,��..��// /i/,��G...: ��//r/i�iil�r/r/ii rrlll//�rj/ r 'iJ /r„l � _ , �n„
/ , ., %/,,.r� rr//�/�/,����/a//r i�r���/�� it - •ri ,r
,,,,r� rr,,✓/ ,
r �r r �'y��'n✓rlllir9��y r /i r A °� �
r r
U
Ur /
r✓��� �arn,ur+nu�r��..... .,�uJ” r J .. l��r� 9�/ N n � �r J � �ad�^m,r+w ruw �` � �:. ��w„n � 1, ..
1 r
�R�
,�.` � 4h•'ON J
9
/1� /�
�
N� I
d
l t'
� I,,�%r r � ✓ r i r� Jl� r / BSI ��� �,. �� Y � �� t
/rpi
rte
a�r�r
1 �"'V pW/
l
Ila,
rrli�
/1(rl
rid 9� / r �r
TOE Am J,fJ 1 r %JNr/6✓JU rJr / a JJ �,'' J
� �lr
if
Vri)fWj'
1 Jr
'i 1 h A Jr i dew mar,.
r /r
r, u
Il
aft
f�� pp iW' IN Ww
/( / C r / � �r�.11 .� ✓fe !gym
rJ jr
r if a-
% m
I y
a A v v
/%! a i/� ' � nw �re a °rrr r
ASR
j % J
r
�r,,wr rrarr?lars arr�a'm�% ,aur ,, j
a rA p(,..:o 1 �Po� IIvl�favf' r iri/r rr ,r f ear m N J
1 d F �I5
tl
[j g
,% olorl alimm ,alll liiiir. mlam all, 1111me minmb, uigl olnlmlt miNib IIIQVNI"itls Im(i% 4I '-ilb4 & IIIIII�I10 MIS 110 I A 0 8)4I
v/ �rrr��rr
dR��R�raR� es.......r tir/�R�rr,??�l��rArlrh9.Ye�lU'NfflU�r�YrfiKk rANNI(�rcN rU(G�'OIM�(��fifl(H6fr!4(ff6YKGlSf'REfI(fiar;�Kl«rrr,1MOrcwmtrrKlrt�Swaur arrrxnrr�utr�muw muuaa�mm� muu w°w'" "0 "° .........._...
wry � � � "
n
Pill IW
till I
oil
1 �a
g
i
l
p7,
4
mri/mm/m/m/m, �r
t Oyu t
,
1
i
i
i
i
All M oloo, Ash ,Ilmll AM dob, ., „ olmoo„ AW lommm, Ali, m4111. Ah Juouo, 1111o, Ab, d1l, dllk AN M M uuo1it "I'Mim maim dib oiMl11hi6 ah A 4111111 Ill� M10 d1w i1611b 111 4111 n11
worl"',err...I. UAMMMAKNO(ROffiffilffifloWNNauu!wuamatiQm,MIII
.....................
..............
NaadO 3Hl 18,
.............. . ....................... ------
..........
................ ........
..................
ss
........ .............
q
Trt
,
4j x JAINIS
I M a
it
Tim
M AMS
o Ilk xi
..........
isnon A OaNIS'
Al,
Fil I IJ Fill III 1C F T ['I III I� 1', 1 L
P1,
[0 it�y f,�y ,: T„„'r. �I p.t, r&�,' ”? .�,� do
.............
i
.......................................................................
v Inns
m F, TO
fo"
it 11 111
-Iji 1,1 11 J Ill Ill Il4 I Ill J 11
0/
0 J91,81S
. ......... ......
A i
........................... ....................... ........................... .........—----------- ............ .......................
lift, raw "s, Am, Aft Av ift Mw Will, difillill, 111011, Al AN, m Afill, db AM Al lillik ummllOPo allhIll d1lollIf 90111 111111h ah dilif 4% A A aft A, iiiiii�Vp All All l S IS) M IN, 4 1
.......... ................ .............
..........
.................
4F
'zlf
H I
EL............ ------.........
...................
Wda VUNMDVH
o
"YAM
lk�n
Moll ANI'llew"
0--W"
55101
adi
................
gad
................... ............. ...... .......... --—---- .
A), 1ommi, AN, lifiR Mak, ofillb, '1901 dudmdu l, Aft, Aft dii[mill, do ildhill, 1111111111k A[[[, AM Am is, is d1k, filh MAlb illglllll, Allill dil a fit, ib a dl Ilk& 41 diAl IS, di Ill dl' G 1* 0 Q
r�(lllrti(f G6PN(kr�6h� tGl���f6B(fittKKf(rrt(rtrr�Al��l�lKdfWnrrdBrmurhriAdf4��fn arartfirrmrlr�!�4hlrN�drrfr tiinll4U411(iGAl�ltivUr?MUrc rtt� NnuNNwwu!NeuttWI4Ww+Uxn�rtr✓ssmrr eemmmwoao , mw'un, ""
_.
r .... ....,..._
�� lr re ri
0,� HI C
c
c ..
.... - _ .
6
I
rmp
i
II f
f
IIIUII (� II/ ICI r�7
� f
r E
1 IJ � J1 1
F f
i
1 11 Vrj�,
rr<rr,
All
if
II
v
t,
I
J
% 9
�4
o
i
i
i
dh Illmuitlo �A id�nli� MI
i6�1Fl«rta lr luG(P�rmrGrhai(JG�'H&hdAf(dG u.JARtmmamrr a�rmetann rw¢mr¢ru�PArfWmw('(fa<RUluffilMRMEMiUNKROMMIfIm6jmuoumuauMEN4'1Ir44wfog, nIAI IwIouuuIAn11u."I ,I.w ......,.. ......... ......._
. ... NiO �4A�'�.�,. ,,,....._.� )
X33
r
r
l
�o
Yr%
i
1,
I
o�
� l
i r
f
/ r
i
i
I u01IV lib lift klb is, dl� molih iIMI,Ill lluo a a a till llw a al a G is 40 a a 0, ON 0 111 40 ,401 1I�II 0 I'll 0 40 1 40 4l00h4 40 IN is 410 1110,
jr/rGlru''�wlW�Prrc�rrt�(G��t Frtel?/�Ft(4r�AU14 f(�fP;ftiC�+dkNf;7fi�d(a8!r wee%a r awfraiewwl�rlr�r5rd�rK�trrr'ram anmwwra�amuuwr�rrkkw�mrw�rwrz. vumwummu;�owwououory ", '"", "~ ,..,.,.. .... ....... _.....
f P" rl '� .. 7 .. . .,....... ... .............. 'G
N 3 3 3HI
Y6'
6,'/ �/���//.. ���iP r�y�,y ,'✓� ��,/�r F,n� ,l ,l✓ail/f��r)fH✓,/�.i ✓✓y�vr.5, ,,,,. �,,
i� %, //////;/'/�/Il/N%j/�/,i�,' 1/�/� ✓/�� / /!'/�/�% rrr ��/'i� ,�!ilr�/yr�/
i ,�% / ��� if / //// //iii//��� /��/,/ ✓ /
✓,�� ✓�� / / r/!,,s>!����� �,,;�//, �,,, r, /r,���/r :,,r� a�ror iii%/��/
�. .,;� F/ � r✓'��rl�;� l rf�!� r"r/rf� /�/fa��� r/ref//r/r, "✓�'J%/�it r
{ rr!/✓
i µ
lk
I'M /,/ „ // yih'
�a�� '„��/iiii/r!/ �l'„r ' / a ,,��r�iii�/j � jr' //ii�{viii;/`��rr, ��>l,r✓
�G�r/
//
/
� k
i
i
i
i
it d0l,, milflb A Alth Alb 61h ah AM 40 A Alt A A dIlIl a IND VIII a III ilb III do 0 a 0 0 0, 0 0 0 40 46 401 41111 41) 1110 0
a%Ih 900 401141,1141"dgfdldllY(III 1w0fd(I III,WifiGGdWMmm0mmfj l",N(N+l r✓/l al ddrf(c4!/?(!AfNNMWflAVU%6NffifNMMYNlli(Ii0(IMIRtlR9006IliIMM1K6fAPwllNUlfOMwNRdfM,?0,,04,00N .Ionlrc—N101on! 00mm5. v —
1
,. !.°
. :�r�lIlI ^ww,
X,aC
"a
Z
Iy j
I
'r
Jeni401/
J 4
r
r
r
r
i
i
Imo% (Ok gh liffif go A, Allb lllill,<'all k m ligh I Ill, ldli( A a dl a dib 0 411 a 411W do 41 '011, I'll 1114 0,0 0 G) V) all 41, 0 0
%�rf urrfr«frlrR !/t ��i�rNGHfldfNfFJ'6dEl�fr(frr rna�arzaaar«rr fwrbu✓r,'urrlr r rrr'r UMwarvunavuaw :ou m .""tn'' um w'o :°, , ,, ,. ....... _.....
a
yr r } i tl�MM�iR1W7
l
P
�� r r /r / ///�� r/ /rti' ✓/":,�r1,%�// ri //l it
' ���jf%✓��j///�/l�Y.,�f%���Vii"' .W1aPri
IN
I
j
r
� r
Pj
/
k
f _
i
A mllholwr lkllhti M Ift a '111 dt AS u000k mlllt a A go, mIllm ddb G it a 1I111 G 40, 4111,0 6, 111111, '61 4 1ti�u
/vGnNirraU�/A1.GQriNUd!�l(rr�rAlFi1 N!(24f(V.2!(l�Sfi4�;f�fVB�,iN6��'riffrrv'rr�r�rairlNti'wNra/�lWiaNfWi��lGl6WR�uM�nYat;tunm a.amauua�^w�uwwuwYrwderw�anrrarra , "," "° ........ ........ ._....
_ .... ......... ...... .. ..
,
ii
x
ri
J
i ✓r !�,;>%%����/�Y/���r /��O/j�%����//�%��ri% //�/r��� /l��r'�� r,/i/,,rr i;r % /��i���//,/,�„%/��/,,,,��. .,,..I._ r, .:
r
i f
/
�;/,��� �� ��/�� r%� l ,/l�,r/�y✓��,�I r r/jr,�/l//.,,/l; ;/irrr�✓J l rr r„i�rrJ/f/
r r J
j ,pr J��/yfr�j, ��i (;% /✓s'! ���/�� 1/, f//�% I f/// q%/jl // rso-,'%
r
j
/
G
C
i
1
l
NO
a do a A is, A M al lnllilll� lb i��I��Dr 40 40 41111 411, all to, 0 0, 010 10, 411, AN 0 a 0 40 1*
WWI(1110001061 ,.... .......___.
m _ r -
o. I
r N
f l���l!��%���/r�i�/viii✓ ���� � ' ' .. , ,
a
4 III
✓ /%/� �; ✓�f�'//�� /iii�� /��/J�� �Id,�i �ri�j rir// ///��; � ,...� .
���� j4/� ��>���iiio/f✓�,�f D?� it "%!/ /� �� �r 1� ��/'i ,"I;,, ',�� '+�,�,r.
/
p
J`
y
=s I
AD db dh IN 01 dl do tea a IND 4I11W a do I* is M 4140 do is do ICI,40 49 G 41 OR 414140 40 4111,1110 0,4111v 41111, AM 10 I'll Al 0 100 10 0
r�KtR rn<�fw�i�rr�0�!�?i�r��«��(Rll(r«ftfFirK�dLfr�fa✓�i6!�1G,�Nd'aarr��!���raU�rkuf�f�rrao,�hm�wr�rarrmmus� �;anmmNrcrcoweutwoum!rv3ooramnIrrrarrtwnrm�rrm�aurwwmauouoou"„" "" ,, ,, .. ... .... ....... _....
I�II�i'�u 4 w aruemr w it�6G U
33H G�w� �3H m,_
.
(
.m......,
r
r f
m
w
/�
///
01
� i rt
ff
Mill
fffl
j... .' ,,I' �/
10 ��.
rl
/
loll
p
i
j,
i
i
m 1 so is 41N 4114 4o 0 1100 0 0 0 at oto 414141,410 0 46 0( 0 40 401 4 0 0 110 10 Milk OR G 4140 4 161 0 10 so
firs arnrrN e.J4JsG�A4��l(rairfie�rGrf�rRr�rtrr�r�mfGKa«�kHr?rra 4IR�vY:Gra�rw K�,mn l tVlk ur,fC2rtNe�SK(uNi?ul<,uPCaarsurrtauf�u�rcimrIREIM hnmIhIhIIhIAMNO I
� .,, _ 1'V' d7BfVd:1 . .. ..
., N330 HVINHfiI
a
rte;
^sr^
If 1I
W.:
}
®rill,
p 6 f I
�VI
/d
.,.,
r .
r:� 1 �_. j rya.•, r%%��i�// �%�Y ,'�� �/ /i l� ����/rlij�i �� r, �f
/
1
/
r %
�i
i7
1,
6
%G t
g
/
i
dol
� rmirs� A} uum mi�im�r mim�oor, mid a ui�4Rm mi�lunNl m�II�I�IO uu�l��n uull�l�«r All dIllll�m m�10111�� f all � !��SNfW ill X116 �fU' I�Il a �N��Ul �' � m( < U 0 0 Gil 0 111141,
.................... ....... .......
VINHOMWO,
............. ........................
rill
1"0
LL
Vat
Nol 1,
'21
IN
q/N
W,i�T F"'m
.... ........ ..........
III da, im 'aft dillot, alh 1111111111%, Alhill, d1011111fo ift, ldh All 111111111, A A dh Allh It a a A, 1111111111p 11h, 11111�11�, ddb 111 a a 0 0 a 0 0, 0 40 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
it/1I(lh(rtl(�l�'r�(rtr(�rE�61�G41G G's3UCJ�!l U•(�f(��(t2(fkfik,'B6'd«��6Y�lr�(UdrkfGwA!md,!NrcsAiwtftNtGO/slt�f url K�lrr�PQfKWrE(!�RaKG6f�5N140ufMUUMU@Nmf�rtmlY�fr� lirt NOW" gun �m tivuuw� emu�wmarw wmrcn , � '
iG d ,� 4 t ° 9 "�IW��.C},�E'Vw�7
° tale � �� i �1 ^qy.��� Al�ij �a r t � co
m� 9"
149 d a $ i 9 r F �d H: 44�yy]� '�^y�q11 11� 1 �,�,y
d�91 ` � Nf p PVT Q >t ��%..E�'M rrll 11 it V ��
I
i
i
i
0 � p
ado V J i
1
I � Q
r`
III-:
IMP": i
311, r
r
ii
*
a ,..
a lip; �LU
T
L w U)
V,
O
..m._,._ �... ...__. �......_ .� ..... __ _
IN
i
i
i
All Affil i w, Aft ME Ift ON ABM ligh I&illaki is A fibi 40h duillb dw A A is dill ilb, a a a to 0 41W a OR 4 , ASS, I,*
r//rrk�(rrrflrrauw°dMl!r/d�t(rlUrr(r�(�(l�(rr't(rid(klyPU!dltdrc�(6ltik!2lew�rl,�vy kKH�r rt'rdaa�r�rw,r�rn�w W,00 I«mlowI 141foAjMAi NIAIaI oumw �,urNmr m "° .. ..... ....._.
I
LL ,,,, ..... vlfd2Y m mm __
iY v l Tdil OjI Vq INp`163 l, 4 � a w mss Y a Pfi e � rY
4�Y 7 �a�� f r,
q "� � � U ................ .......__. �r
d...,......_ I�Y
,...... �. � ..... �:
r �
. � 1,
!'
I
ij
Rill did
.................
...........
dr I .... ry:.........
1 � -
J C7 J
fy1" 1 u
^.n
d„
jru; I '..
�mµ i
wzn Yr
i
l
--------
,M ..
T=77�, YF
,U
� uJ k ,1
o
z l
r
CSA
LU
oz Z
it a�
" — ..:
LU
�I
i
w
a v ,�
h
0
/
qj-
OD
/
A, A&mum, Voa� Rub A& fib 110 d1i All uIIIIIII1RIVi lilt Mill Idillii A All A A A 41�111, 1111111 iI1�1IIIN edit RD is S ' a al 0 0 0 1110, 1), 40 0 41 0 0 0 OR 4,
/✓raMr�r4Wi;M16w'fmNU rma'aw u6 r;NNtWiti6�iNNflGFfl RfrA«ar/l,�r a rr✓l m(w,"W5,GU AONA NWONMAIVwwavISMImm,oraddaarcYNrmw4NdWWNUGdwma IN mm » ww, „°„ .,.... .. ..._...
� 'IN @7In'' �l7d"Vn a
Q,
f . ... _. ill I
w
�
-TT
i
w
a
7
'i/ 9
Ul
0
0
w
s
o r
5a P �rm, r r fw *...................
0',
1 /r(f/r
UP
11,1111...............
j �. J dA
i
J
0
AMY �
w� r
V
p
0
i
j
rrflh hm uu l6 hdha Ado 2% M I titi M o lllw Ilk i Ali ldlllr A a i h iiilllflH is ill, a ai fm all, i11I�fV 0 Is 0 01, 0 110 0 0 0, 0 0 40 0 0 is 0 0
/r�a,�u(�l'YGJGardFaF'rr�r7fGatit��'a Srrr6'WR,�n��rrm?k'rKr�r�aa�«fd vKrcr(ruraa n'w"ff"&owmou uVNIMMNIMmJ affimaammummamwaaam�nuuwwwum nv;a;,wwuuauwwmn r u -- ----
.., ... II &7.... ._w,.... ,�... ,,... ..�.... .,...,.�,,,.. �._. .. ..
VINH�OJI 1110 oa
M19 3HJ4.
v
� ws
i
a
o
.,
4 Y
1� 51
13 i
I
0
u
IF
3 k ,
awro r�
mcs iJ ara V� �k i�� , E
'r
w w
0
0
Ul
`r
o
xi�a c %, fAa W W ac .. era w era r''
5 Sr
Y
P
p
i
mm % Ream amahl, mile AM% Ag to 1101% au fik ditt all, lift A ulh ft it il, dv oIb lll' 41b M+AI ll� � � ��@� ^ ���A IS,
f ?a
N80AIVOUIBMI
01
J�jb 3t4
... ................... ............... ................................. ..............
ma
1i Wei
.. ...............
41
A M=7.77
-----------
............
.. ...........
..............
Jill 11
al,
ob 727
..............
,!pint
177
Z6
0
EEV:
ad
...................
........... .. .........
331 ............ .......................... ...............
Pill, 1111% oft obf 60% fill A MI A A M111 a a A dill, 1111M a a 10 11, dl� dw is at 0 410, so i1lll11 G 0 0 0, 1911110 lit 01 100 10 0 410 40 4w 0 Q( to
f9fAff"WWWWROMHOMEmmINOM,V. ...........-....................
- .... .........-
YIN HOJ I IVO'!Nfl�!�q
N3MID 3Hi
............ ............. ----------.........
KE
up m If
......... .
35 1
LLI
TA
J
00,
yy
u1f
kf . .d.. .. ..�m 'f .^
Pill ....................
OW
ol
vi
Oki,
R1,
All AI ll� "I All
.. .............
ot& Ift 410 A fi1111 111, ill is, 411 111110 40,4 0 4 1, Ilk 01,40,41, 411, 40 0 111, 40 0 110 4111, dw OID 0 0 49,
.........--- ................---.............
........
N3389 3Hi
qq u�/�Y III Lill,
.................. ...
....................
A t a
I ILL"I I'll i A iil�
77'
...........
Y
� ..
4........
.........
I 4"ll- wl
l V9
III00, w
Aw
Al
00,
.................. .......................... -------............ ............................. .............................
ON"
iiiIIIII 11(oh AM 10, IS alk a ON%, a a A a a at tell, INS a a ill, 411110 M� 11140 Of GO GO 111, 410' 40, 01,40 0 0 41) to 0 141, 0 0 41 0 0 0
piljNb{,r(�FUr/S6NNrnln/r F„fC0�NJ6'YaGNNUPK�IKCNr,��ifN(fRaGdtG I'ar rtrItBdNK�InPmNWWfatPPlS,'K5a;4W:d:NbrNtthG mawwivwwwaueWNmPaemmn�z rrrrrrca�mamw un ”"tlN° ," ... .._....
.. � ...-i9
r z : � �
.........�. �� �__ �. .......... : .._:. �_--- .... ... . ........__. � ...m..._ .. .....
� I
u
L
b1
p {
I
9 f
°f
!
I bl
0
i
Q ^p
I
J i
m,e
I
1
i
i
I
I i
j�
N
I
Cy N
� f i
6
M
.. it
i
i
'Jima is �Iiiib om Ammit,a ift I(M du A dip a M db a ill 40 is ob do dw GO 40, 1110 la, 0, 6 0 40 40 0 1'
/GJflJ4646Utl�J;6�N ff�l'f(ff PNf9�g l fltmmeraflfli"affamafrww"✓k6emfafe("l"awr�INNwwovallmmomu igufm tlrmaoraaarrrdrraara omunn^, , ,wu wu ........ ...... JJ
1
xnt U N3d dl ill iV
� cy
. . :� �.,., ._
is
x
i
s
'llio 110 w�
jo
9 ,
z
w
9
I
0
om
j
i
g
..._ _ ....
—
i
i
i
i
jah dh A& uu10110 11, aitift ft MIRW a a dilki i@lIlh M li fu A A dt All) a 0 41, a Is, 111, 0 0 41), iilulalU 0 0 0 0, 0 0 ON, 11111), 0 411 WIC dw 0, 411( 41, 0,
/lf4Gfu 'S0'Ghu6N lflf(N(ffPNtir Ml r4.IN(i'�iG�6�dQ(?r(?R�;(NFFrrirr ndu A�n<(�fi�ENaF�KCrk'rNrrrrrrlrraMU 6'CHad�fuoM14'�rtalY�idma um mttrduuouwrypywrSArr rrrrrr mrmrymm; mN w �uM "" ---
..,,_ .... ........ ..._ ...,,,... .....
f1-0illttb w0.1i�i�lq �`
17 7
N39idO 9H1
ffff
a
o �
i
9
F
i
r
._. ...... _ ....,,,. ...............
j
u
„�t�µ ruuflu�� rm �i000�, ��, �1% aliouo- mm, h���m, wG muollltiwu �� , a �� r0�i o�u�IBO� ull�lhlr< �uul� ����w � dN�b W� +I�'i� �11r � � � �I � ' � ��� � ��1Ub 1 oil
ril bhl�4Rf�#C('JG+�N/l�iN'y;�R4lr�f(fArr((frrF((fi({6G1�(�(4'6�11.'KiV'4E�N'hlJ rt(t rl�Pknf�Krw��lL RA,O06MOMMAMI ,.,,. ........_....
1
"' 111W114N f } a
g O ail 9H
� �.....m _ ....:. ._..._m _.,... ..._L I ..... ......... ........ .......... ..... _ _ �..._ �..�.. .._.�..._..._ ��.�w,.. _.....
gig
� 1
I
J fa
l
i � I
/ f
I
J ftll ti.
P�1
p y r 1
i
I
ai
In
r a .
/
9
i
9 + I
r
0 I
/
.yw ;v� g Orc '10 00'. +rvy 0v
50 51 J
i
_ 4 _
i
+am% Aft Oft migh 11h a A a Mb A��w a dill a a AN dIIIIlII, I1l11, I ) b I4Ill11110 111111 d) 111) to 111 0 4110 0 to 40, oil y
rUrlawr�456N�dr(rArL,rrC(rl ref✓'.f��hKyA�G(�GGil;'�Fr(rMrr�rrh(fr;Alr✓rtl rrkKk��i✓xfr,:w�aWi��w'���rr�urc rmwllN'�fiS✓IrGiamrcnuuw<rwi mmmmmmwwuuu.murr o�onww vwtlN �� ��� ." ��� ,.... _ — f
I
N'' ,1
V y� 98 l u dl d r
1
1
�f
m
i
s
a
f d ,
�i
p
a I i
rtJ
1
d m°w ti
ml ol,r Al AW ¢v
Aom
AI
a
o
m �
' ff�
I � —----- ����..�. �,��..,,� ..�.,�,... ... .. ...m., .....� �,��_
X110% 'all dft doll A% ab All d1k 1111u11h Alb 1111ioloi1h, a mll � ImIl dwii, 16 A Oil dill 4111 lb 11I1 ID, M[ aw 1116, 0 0 IN 10 0, 40 410 OR 0 1110 101 SlAR I
IIRf VAl www""(7lflffuPPr,2 Pro(P(m Gr a,Rrvil�IWOMW(Ir(d«r(.rv�R!(r1m h'lr,f66rLV'kfY4�r(3la,`N,PJIIl�(f dY�tdhw(fdPMar�'7PG1ailUiGRltlrfiNVttmWM19raEWr4L�AYl/"fog a... ,.... ........._...
..— ..tl N 10
n �rh uwr µr e . 1p 1,v r9I91 M;na
If 2
................. ...I
i
I �
� r
f
i
i
i
;x ........ ..........
..............
IN
Mi
...,. . . - r
......._. ....... ........_ ��,,.�_
i
i
i
„gab Ah ift Alk A�Rfm hft daft A Alb lift dh' lift fib,,u1111ou dIIlk d011l M MR, dit filb 11l� ill At 4) Ob 41, 0 0, as 0 0 0 40 411 41) 40 �'1*
Am"A da aalm rawl aar MONATO000"OdrtlrrrBftr(MI AMOK,ww 9440MMMfrSOlramdl rrtf"Iffim"J"WAWIN"
o�m
a .. _
VIN110111 O NII"l'll hl]
�
FAV V� Ik �� 9V r u w r
380 Hi
kp
:r.
I
i
. 1l
rrn
ti-
l
/r
,,._ .................... .......... A......... .. ����.,,��—
f _
flft Aft, A& alb, 60, AW mob db ob allh amRo% auuih Al ift Albil Alb liiillkl ill AlVk u F nn 11 1 mlk AS a uu n 111h,ill, a ill 0, lllllb di ll i fo a a a all �IND 11141 a 0 IN, is
.............. ........ ........... 0
N3
IN/
oi
011/1 VM17Fll;'V
" a lifill, "AlL "IlIllf, 1111111111, allfill, dI111111I, 1flT1, miter X01 @h',ti Ah Alk dk ,llllaV Ah 'im, ill all in] Shl a dbilo So 0)
..........-
........... ........------ ............. ...............
AHI
............. - ..............
al
Sil
lo
I'M
-------------
AINj Ah Ak migh AM Ifilk SAM I& Alb oft, A a A A, do SO a lb All IS (0, ON 0 0, 40 ON[ All 0 0 0 Go 0,ON-* Is,0 Ow 4 4 0 5 OR
"4d
N39SO 3HI
III 4
VIII
V VIII
VIII ------------
08
lox,
C4
Z�
jf I
CN
02
--—--------
............ ................ .............
NI
AN,
fift ims, I& Aft dXb �Ift 611% ift, MMh NOW ON AD 6111 dfit,Ab at a ills 1111 dD is a AN 4b 411 8,too 411,46, 40 0 GO do,410 0 40, 1 0 4110 411,4,Is, ok
.........
N33,80 3Hi
........... ............. ------
In's
In f
i 0
t 4 A I
13 q,
ig
I.
51 fa IS
............. ......................... ------------- ................. .......................
................ .............. ......................
Am Aft d1111111w, dillim 11101111, alli, oillh A6 111111111, A% AlIll, M, ilft, Ak N111 Alb M M114 11111111l, All dk All A A all A mi ill111i dl a a (0, dil 0 Imi 0 0 111, do, 141) 41) 'S IN), a
gg'gg gf(" .....I
.... .......——----- ....... ..................
VINH DA"M'IN119'10
'1IJ
3
N33
...................
........... ................. ........
..................
NIP
IN
s"y
o
o ,. mwwauauuuu�w
r.
f.
Jf/
..................... ----—------- .......................°°
I'M Aw Aft" A% Ah Afth ash 11101% Ift 11111k, I Aug im A, dill, All A doll 4511 a a Aill All A A (Ali a GI a 40, 40 41, 0140 D S) 0 a
.. ......... ............ 7
b j�Hi
all
I
1 4
I A au JUI
Pill
Ill's
j
A R/I
Ila
31111, v a
. ............................... .............
...............
MI, nn 11111h, Abl, Alk, 111111111, ft aIiiiiiiii dilk A& Ak A& A& 90% At dMi sk 112% lillilk 11111111, All is dollif dill da
'(pa(ufld�(�U6ftd(f(lf�frt(f Nr(NUrUi6i�r�(f�s'�Ir rP�r�rrrt�r ldrKlGnUu'SIrGElul,4«rRlr/4N�TrrrrCr'ld�6�(;Nrf�tl(rPAll.YrfidJbGIUr�7GO�(r�jVl2i(�q rffWWUYfMPdWmVWWUWWNfuOm a umWlwwwrcNh2amJU rc";rc+;� "rJr' ° 99 '.. ..... ....._..
VlNIPO
3380 3H id�`I DIY ilw r
� w �
�� w
� f e
r „
IA
d � P
w
f
I
' {
{ry 1
' � f
r ,�
` rp, u
mPo,
w W re x�
4w nm
4, r r r
f s w
k
a
Allw ✓
All
N
R
i
� r
i
� r
m_ ... .... _ m_ _ „iw w
p
i
i
i
i
i
i
A% 111011h, nnnim mmiom, mlmuom, Alb Aft, n Alm,Aft mll�llnn, mi�llhilr WTI A dah ANo n�flii mP AS' '1ii f viii ilk ill il101111l A hill lillb 0 4�1 4111 0 0 111410 0 '
uvar/mrrrrm��rcarufr/a6ak��rtarr�r�hruRalU 'aUmli���mr��r'rrKar�wrlu�r✓,'r�a�?�rra;�rrr���rrr�:rmatfaKr rrcr�rwmurtarr'riXXl�rlil'r�NPEfPIIaKHO!r�r'urr�to�wUQm �mrarcNUrNU�mpa na. ww "" ".. ".".". .........._.
f
4 .... ,.
0 N11 0
9 r u I G 'I d n i r y 33HO H�i
I
7 {
i
I ;I
/E
I� il I f , ^"
fI �
11111;," III � it l"
II II,I
...
G III li; v td
m,
'I'1m, i
Ed
fi
�r
i
� 1
III I��Ia � ! II II
0
G I I 1
III
} I
i•i1"Al
0
0
0
y
d
1
_ �.
i
WIN A. mllllll11, 90� '0% AWN AN Am, a& Au , AIN IioIlk 1mol111of dioo11i m abil All il1b Ill ill 411111E 411111 I1I1 , DUI 0 414), 4Y II1, ill 41
-7
IIINWO
IP NJI'lVO'NlVlll
fla
3389 3HI
c7j
............. ............ —--------- ..................
.J i,
.........r'
O
A� L
i
td�
All/I
Hill
1. Ift d1lik M illou, hillb, ildllllrr, 11111k, All, ft As AN, Affit A dillak A iIIlkk iihill Qt�t 0 10, dIll S to lill��
�ewaGU�lr�6Pal�Gr�,�r�G(f rr��'Il�t(ii'�r�Flrr��a6t�nrs�Uaa��rr�a�r�rAR�Nr6ti;l�e60(OkrrUm�rRmaartti�;G�alr�Uan�'r�kr«urr?R�f�f��flr«(FaRK�f�if
�m��I t I m u m m �t r '�YYtt� � �q I�ry�4p N yYYYYY�uuu�rirv~rka�a.���}yl.�p�Mw�r�»a y��pan��a�11 Jf��RIi II In y � III
�1 I,.F
��llu
.I
i I
yil:k
n
V
f V
f VII v
f
f� V,
0
° I I
i
j
�V��j�l��6uliliul`IAlO � I Y b�li��
i
llluYU;I i �Y ' �
I
`o
i _
i
i
duh Arlllll moll ,Ilminh, Aft nnmmh Imomloif nmoom� Immunum Imollmoll, nnlullulml 1111111111 6uI�l11Nm AN All dtt, gh gia itl s !ilUu 41411 ITV 1IIII1)' 0 fpu 0 0 q�w 4il° 4P G '0104
....... ......... (M9IWV0.NOWff
yl N HOJ I IVO Vivo
ijq' '�'l !II Nj'j)JD 3Hi
flu
............ ............
j � flu ���S
All
pa
All,
............... ............... ........... ............ ..............
411 oil,do,oil 01
dION, flIN& drk Aft dhi Aix Ah a a db A dill, 11%,
rrcr<vn6��lr�okrt�a(rr�rWrmrc rrw��!WararQr<rrrrtiK r�rvluirr�r��,�d�GrrarWrrWrrrwWeri�uwrruwm rrrrrNrrWWrWrraWr6WWaWWrWr'mr�ra��maer;�nlWrnibnr�ommuu m ""�rvu,wmarn"°.,m ."""°U"""a „°, """, ,, "" .... ...._....
i
i
.
M — "
G
� � �q
........... .....................
fi Ihh
1141��
m.
i
1;
VIII III, lrii���u�l,; I
I
;4
r,
°J
t
t
I
IIY 1
1II
l
i
YYII 'Il I
n
9 �� �I& imp" 01 dAll, All, Job abill, Alk, mdPok Alb 91% libi monmoll, lilliffill 11101114 lofb oIdh 9160swill, 11lb Q, a
ORDINANCE NO. XX - 14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. RECITALS
A. A request has been made by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company
LLC ("Applicant") to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for the property
known as The Green Mixed Use Project site, which includes properties identified by Assessor
Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, and 986-0033-006-00, encompassing
approximately 27.5 acres; and
B. The Applicant is proposing to obtain approvals for a development project that
includes the construction of six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple buildings
and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail
and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and a full range of site
improvements; and
C. The project is the subject of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR),
State Clearinghouse No. 2013072032. On , the City Council approved
Resolution -14, certifying the Final SEIR for the project, and adopting CEQA findings, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for
the Project. The Development Agreement was part of the Project analyzed in the SEIR and the
impacts of the activities under the Development Agreement were analyzed in the SEIR; and
D. The Applicant has applied for a Development Agreement which will vest the
Project Approvals.
E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Development
Agreement on August 26, 2014, for which public notice was given by law; and
F. The Planning Commission made its recommendation to the City Council for
approval of the Development Agreement by Resolution.
G. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the
City Council on , 2014 for which public notice was given as provided by law.
H. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda
Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing.
Section 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Therefore, on the basis of: (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein, (b)
the City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, (d) The Green Mixed Use
Project SEIR; (e) the Staff Report; (f) information in the entire record of proceeding for the
Project, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and
determines that-
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, and in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives
policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan (as amended);
and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan
with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because
the Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. -14, amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City
Council on , 2014.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
general welfare in that the Developer's proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan (as amended), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and future Project
Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the
permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the
developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development
process, including all legal fees and costs.
Section 3. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A to the
Ordinance) and authorizes the City Manager to execute it.
2
Section 4. RECORDATION
Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement takes effect and is fully executed
by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation.
Section 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of
its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at
least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the
Government Code of the State of California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of
2014 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDICC 09.16.141Attxx-DA Ord.docx
3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF DUBLIN
When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Fee Waived per GC 27383
Space above this line for Recorder's use
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AND
STOCKBRIDGEBHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY, LLC
FOR "THE GREEN" PROJECT
1
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement" or "Development Agreement") is
made and entered into in the City of Dublin on this day of 2014, by and
between the CITY OF DUBLIN, a Municipal Corporation ("City") and BHV/STOCKBRIDGE
EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, its
successors and assigns ("Developer")pursuant to the authority of§§ 65864 et seq. of the
California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. City and Developer
are, from time-to-time, individually referred to in this Agreement as a"Party," and are
collectively referred to as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et seq. ("Development Agreement
Statute") and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code ("Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to
enter into a development agreement for the development of real property with any person having
a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in
such property.
B. Developer owns certain real property ("the Property") consisting of
approximately 27.5 acres of land at the south side of Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive to
the east and Arnold Drive to the west, (APNs 986-0033-004-00; 986-0033-005-02 and 986-003-
006-00) and that is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and is incorporated
herein by reference.
C. Developer, or its predecessor in interest, has applied for, and City has approved or
is processing, various land use approvals in connection with the development of the proposed
project (the "Project"), including, without limitation, a General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution. No. , adopted by the City Council on
, 2014); a Planned Development Zoning and Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
and Rezoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council on
, 2014), Site Development Review (for the commercial portion or the project and the
residential portion of the project as separate applications) and a Vesting Tentative Map and this
Development Agreement. All such approvals, collectively, together with any approvals or
permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, are referred to as the "Project
Approvals."
D. The Project includes construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial
project including up to 40,000 gross square feet of retail and restaurant floor area and up to 400
residential dwelling units on the site, landscaped plazas and open spaces as well as grading of the
site, extension of utilities, and related improvements.
E. City desires the timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of the Project.
F. The City Council has found that, among other things, this Development
Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as
amended and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute and Chapter 8.56.
2
G. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a
Development Agreement that will facilitate development of the Project, subject to conditions set
forth herein.
H. The Project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, which was the
subject of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (SCH 4 91103064), certified by the City Council in Resolution No. 51-93
("`Eastern Dublin EIR"). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Significant impacts from
development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the Property site, some of which could not be
mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring
program, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
L In 2004, the City approved amendments to the General plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change the land use designation on the 27.5 acre site from Campus Office to
general Commercial that would have allowed an IKEA furniture store and other commercial
uses on the site. The City certified a Supplemental EIR(the "IKEA EIR") SCH 4 2003092076
to assess the impacts of that land use change, and that SEIR was certified on March 16, 2004 by
City Council Resolution No. 44-04. In 2008, the City approved a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning, Site Development review and a Development Agreement for a 305,000
square foot shopping center on the site. An Addendum was adopted along with the approval of
the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning in 2007. The Addendum concluded that the
potentially significant impacts of developing the site had been adequately described and
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA EIR and that no new or more severe
significant impacts would result from future development of the site.
J. For the Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional
review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Supplemental EIR, dated
(Resolution. No. adopted by the City Council on ), describing the
Project and identifying new impacts of the Project, some of which could not be mitigated to a
less than significant level, as well as new mitigation measures for the proposed Project in
addition to those addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA EIR. Upon approval of
the Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan and PD Rezoning, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and this Development Agreement, the City Council
adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
K. On 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
approving this Development Agreement ("the Approving Ordinance"). The
Approving Ordinance will take effect on ("the Approval Date").
NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregoing recitals and in
consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City
and Developer agree as follows:
3
AGREEMENT
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
The Property that is the subject of this Agreement is described in Exhibit A attached
hereto ("Property").
2. INTEREST OF DEVELOPER.
The Developer has a legal interest in the Property in that it is the owner of the Property.
3. RELATIONSHIP OF CITY AND DEVELOPER.
It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily
entered into by the City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of the City. The
City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership
between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in
connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or
partners.
4. EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM, COMMUNITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATIONS
4.1 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date
("Effective Date").
4.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and
extend five (5) years thereafter.
4.3 Optional Extension. Prior to the termination of this Development Agreement, as
provided in Section 4.2, Developer may extend the term of the Development Agreement. To do
so, Developer shall give City written notice at least ninety (90) days prior to the termination of
the date of the Development Agreement. At the time Developer provides such notice, Developer
shall make a contribution to City in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000).
Upon receipt of the notice and the contribution, the City Manager shall approve the extension
and shall notify the Developer in writing that the term of the Development Agreement has been
automatically extended for an additional one-year period, commencing on the date the
Development Agreement would otherwise have terminated. The Developer may exercise its
option to extend the Development Agreement no more than five (5) times, for a maximum total
term of the Development Agreement of ten years. The total contribution for maximum extension
of five (5) years will be One Million Dollars ($1,000,000).
4.4 Termination on Sale of Individual Lots. Notwithstanding the foregoing Sections
4.2 and 4.3, the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any individual lot
and such lot shall be released from and shall no longer be subject to this Agreement (without the
execution or recordation of any further document or the taking of any further action) upon the lot
being finally subdivided and sold or leased (where the lease is for a period longer than one (1)
year) to a member of the public or any other ultimate user. City shall cooperate with Developer,
4
at no cost to City, in executing in recordable form any document that Developer (including any
successor to the title of the Developer in and to any of the afore described lots) may submit to
confirm the termination of this Agreement as to any such lot.
4.5 Community Benefit Contribution and Affordable Housing. The Developer shall
provide a Community Benefit Payment in accordance with Exhibit B (the "Community Benefit
Contribution Schedule") attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Developer shall meet its
obligations for the provision of affordable housing under the Dublin Municipal Code in
accordance with the provisions of Exhibit C (the "Affordable Housing Schedule") attached
hereto and made a part hereof. The provisions of this Section 4.5 survive the expiration of this
Agreement. The provisions Exhibit B, Community Benefits, shall survive the termination of this
Agreement.
4.6 Term of Map and Project Approvals. The term of any Project Approvals and
(pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a)), the term of any vesting tentative
map described above shall automatically be extended until the later of the following: (1) the end
of the term of this Agreement; or(2)the end of the term or life of such vesting tentative map
otherwise given pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act or local regulation not in conflict with the
Subdivision Map Act.
5. USE OF THE PROPERTY.
5.1 Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on
the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project
Approvals (as and when issued), and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time,
be approved pursuant to this Agreement. Such amendments, such as to Site Development
Review or Tentative Map project approvals, once effective, shall become part of the law
Developer is vested into without an additional amendment of this Agreement.
5.2 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of
use, the maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed buildings, the location and maintenance of
on-site and off-site improvements, parking standards, procedures for and standards governing
building design, the location of public utilities (operated by the City), and other terms and
conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement,
the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals, subject
to the provisions of Section 5.1.
5.3 Rules Regarding Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's
ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of
the Property and governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height,
bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the
Agreement.
5.4 Rules Regarding Engineering and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly
provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and
official policies governing engineering, improvement and construction standards and
specifications applicable to the Project shall be those in force and effect at the time of the
5
applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of
this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing
design, improvement and construction standards, and specifications applicable to public
improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force and effect at the time of the
applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of
this Agreement.
5.5 Uniform Codes Applicable. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with
the provisions of the Uniform Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes and
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the
time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, encroachment or other construction
permits for the Project.
5.6 Phasing, Timing. The parties agree that the Project will generally be constructed
in phases, in accordance with Exhibit D ("Phasing Plan"), attached hereto and made a part
hereof. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. The parties agree that pursuant to
California Government Code Section 66456.1, Developer may file multiple final maps.
5.7 New Rules and Regulations. During the term of this Agreement, the City may
apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City
to the Property, which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and
which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement only
if. (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or
official policies would not prevent, or otherwise require any reduction in the square footage or
total number or location of buildings, residential units, other improvements or parking spaces,
change or limit the land uses or limit the density or intensity of the Project or any part thereof or
impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development of the Property, all as
contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances,
resolutions, rules, regulations, or official policies have general applicability. Consistent with
Government Code Section 66498.2 (applicable to vesting tentative maps), in the event City
subsequently changes its ordinances, policies or standards during the term of this Agreement,
such changed ordinances, policies, or standards shall automatically apply to secure the vested
right for Developer to proceed with the Project under such changes, provided Developer notifies
City in writing that it elects to apply such changes and clearly specifies such changes to the
City's ordinances, policies and standards.
5.8 Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from
denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the
Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, and
policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms,
restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein.
5.9 Moratorium Shall Not Apply. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by
action of the City, by initiative, referendum or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a
limit on the rate of development or a voter-approval requirement which affects the Project on all
or any part of the Property, the City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall
6
not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the
building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of
emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558.
6. SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED OR REVISED FEES, ASSESSMENTS AND
TAXES.
6.1 Impact Fees, Exactions Dedications. City and Developer agree that this
Agreement does not limit the City's discretion to impose or require payment of any fees in
connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and
other impacts of the Project, the dedication of any land, or the construction of any public
improvement or facilities. City agrees, however, that it will not impose any such fees other than
those that were already in effect on the Effective Date. Furthermore, Developer agrees that,
notwithstanding any rights it may obtain under its vesting tentative map, the City may increase
any such existing fees applicable to the Project, payment of which are typically required at
building permit or final map approval, even if those fees or charges were increased after the
Effective Date or after Developer's application for the vesting tentative map was deemed
complete.
6.2 Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection
fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that
(1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is
prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial
financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement.
6.3 New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project
provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the
application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement.
7. AMENDMENT OR CANCELLATION.
7.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. The Project and
Property shall be subject to state and federal laws and regulations and this Agreement does not
create any vested right in state and federal laws and regulations in effect on the Effective Date.
In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this
Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or
require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and
confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such
federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be
subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56.
7.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended in writing
from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with the procedures
of state law and Chapter 8.56.
7.3 Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding
Paragraph 7.2, any amendments to this Agreement that do not relate to (a)the term of the
Agreement as provided in Paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in
7
Paragraph 5.2; (c) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (d) the maximum height or size
of proposed buildings; or(e) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this
Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public
hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may
execute an amendment hereto.
7.4 Cancellation By Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this
Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their
successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant
to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City.
8. ANNUAL REVIEW.
8.1 Review Date. The annual review date for this Agreement shall be between June 1
and July 1, 2015 and thereafter between each June 1 and July 1 during the Term.
8.2 Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director shall initiate
the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer
thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Developer shall
provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual
review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director,
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The burden of
proof by substantial evidence of compliance is upon the Developer.
8.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, the City shall deposit via electronic mail to
Developer a copy of all staff reports, and related exhibits concerning contract performance at
least three (3) days prior to any annual review.
8.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by the City in connection with the annual
review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the
time of review.
9. DEFAULT.
9.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the
parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity that are not otherwise provided for in
this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly
including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the Parties agree that the remedy of termination may only be exercised in the
event of a material breach of this Agreement after notice and a public hearing as set forth in
Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.56; and provided further, that a default by any Transferee
approved by the City shall not be deemed a default by Developer or any other Transferee
hereunder.
9.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the
non-defaulting party shall serve written notice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the
default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of
default, the non-defaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its
8
rights under this Agreement;provided, however, that, if the default cannot be cured within such
thirty (30) day period, the non-defaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable
action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day
period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute
a waiver of any default.
9.3 No Damages Against CitX. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon
termination of this Agreement.
10. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE.
Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the
other party requesting such party to certify in writing that (a) this Agreement is in full force and
effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or
modified either orally or in writing, or, if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the
knowledge of the certifying party, the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its
obligations under this Agreement, or, if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of
any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate
within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be
agreed to by the parties. City Manager of the City shall be authorized to execute any certificate
requested by Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such
certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that
such party shall be deemed to have certified that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this
Section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification.
11. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION: CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE.
11.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien
placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement,
including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any
Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed
of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any
portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
11.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.1 above,
no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after foreclosure
or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements, or to
guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion,
or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition;
provided, however, that the Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or
to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or
authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. A breach of any obligation secured
by any mortgage or the lien against the mortgaged interest or a foreclosure under any mortgage
9
or other lien shall not by itself defeat, diminish, render invalid or unenforceable, or otherwise
impair the obligations or rights of Developer under this Agreement,
11.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If the City
receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer
hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then the City shall deliver to such
Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with
respect to any claim by the City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each
Mortgagee shall have the right, at its option, during the same period available to Developer to
cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the
City's notice. City, through its City Manager, may grant a sixty (60) day cure period which can
be extended for not more than an additional one-hundred and twenty (120) days upon request of
Developer or a Mortgagee.
12. SEVERABILITY.
The unenforceability, invalidity, or illegality of any provision, covenant, condition, or
term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid, or illegal.
13. ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS.
If the City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be
entitled. If any person or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in
equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the
parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as
a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse the City for all reasonable court
costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in defense of any such action or other proceeding.
14. TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS.
14.1 Right to Assign. Developer may wish to sell, transfer, or assign all or portions of
its Property to another entity (each such other entity is referred to as a"Transferee"). In
connection with any such sale, transfer, or assignment to a Transferee, Developer may sell,
transfer, or assign to such Transferee any or all rights, interests, and obligations of Developer
arising hereunder and that pertain to the portion of the Property being sold or transferred to such
Transferee, provided, however, that: no such transfer, sale, or assignment of Developer's rights,
interests, and obligations hereunder shall occur without prior written notice to City and approval
by the City Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or
delayed. In determining the reasonableness of any consent or failure to consent, the City
Manager shall consider whether the proposed Transferee has sufficient development experience
and creditworthiness to perform the obligations to be transferred. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the following shall not be deemed a"Transfer" for purposes of this Agreement:
(i) any sale, pledge, assignment or other transfer of the entire Project Site to an affiliate of
Developer and (ii) any change in the corporate form of Developer or its Affiliates such that a
transfer from a limited liability company to a corporation or partnership that does not affect or
10
change the beneficial ownership of the Project Site; provided, however that Developer shall
provide to the City written notice of such permitted change with such backup materials or
information reasonably requested by the City. In addition, Developer has the right to enter into
service contracts with third parties, including but not limited to construction and other service
contracts, to perform work required by Developer under this Agreement. No such contract shall
be deemed a Transfer under this Agreement.
14.2 Approval and Notice of Sale. Transfer or Assignment. The City Manager shall
consider and decide on any transfer, sale, or assignment within ten (10) days after Developer's
notice, provided all necessary documents, certifications, and other information are provided to
the City Manager to enable the City Manager to determine whether the proposed Transferee can
perform the Developer's obligations hereunder. Notice of any such approved sale, transfer, or
assignment (which includes a description of all rights, interests and obligations that have been
transferred and those which have been retained by Developer) shall be recorded in the official
records of Alameda County, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Manager, concurrently
with such sale, transfer, or assignment.
14.3 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all or a portion
of Developer's rights, interests, and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 14.1 of this
Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect
to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager
approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment;provided, however, that if any Transferee
approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests, and obligations of
Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights,
interests, and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be
subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications, and
other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. If a Transferee assumes the
obligations of Developer with respect to a portion of the Developer's rights, interests and
obligations hereunder, if such Transferee defaults under this Agreement, such default shall not
constitute a default by Developer or its Affiliates or any other Transferee not affiliated with the
defaulting party and no default by Developer or its Affiliates with respect to its remaining
obligations hereunder shall constitute a default by any Transferee not affiliated with Developer..
14.4 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding
Paragraph 14 of this Agreement, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer, or assignment of
this Agreement certain rights, interests, and/or obligations, which Developer shall retain,
provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests, and/or obligations in a written document
to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the
sale, transfer, or assignment of the Property. Developer's Transferee shall then have no interest
or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations, and this Agreement shall remain
applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests, and/or obligations.
15. AGREEMENTS RUN WITH THE LAND
All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this
Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns,
representatives, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or
11
any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute
covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to,
Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from
doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property (a) is for the
benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) runs with such properties,
and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such
properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its
property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties.
16. BANKRUPTCY.
The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
17. INDEMNIFICATION.
Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its elected and
appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from
any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or
property damage which may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by
the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or
employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the
Project. Provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to
negligence or wrongful conduct of the City. its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees
or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has
been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an
improvement agreement or maintenance bond). If City is named as a party to any legal action,
City shall cooperate with Developer, shall appear in such action and shall not unreasonably
withhold approval of a settlement otherwise acceptable to Developer.
18. INSURANCE.
18.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance. During the term of this
Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability
insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00)with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self-insurance retention per
claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and
shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement.
18.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Developer
shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all persons employed by Developer for
work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to
provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to
indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such
insurance.
18.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to issuance of any permits for the Project, including
grading permits, Developer shall furnish the City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required
12
in Sections 18.1 and 18.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen
(15) days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The
insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers,
agents, employees, and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project.
19. NOTICES.
All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices
required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows:
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Facsimile: (925) 833-6651
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC
c/o Stockbridge Real Estate Funds
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attention: Mr. Stephen Pilch
Telephone: (415) 658-3349
Facsimile: (415) 658-3449
With copies to:
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attention: Mary G. Murphy, Esq.
Telephone: (415) 393-8257
Facsimile: (415) 374-8480
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party. Thereafter,
all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given
and received upon personal delivery, electronic mail, or, if mailed, upon the expiration of 48
hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight
courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall
be deemed given upon verification of receipt.
20. EXTENSION DUE TO LEGAL ACTION, REFERENDUM OR EXCUSABLE
DELAY.
20.1 Litigation Challenging Agreement. If any litigation is filed challenging this
Agreement (including, but not limited to any CEQA determinations) or the validity of this
Agreement or any of its provisions, or if this Agreement is suspending pending the outcome of
13
an electoral vote on a referendum, then the Term shall be extended and Developer's
performance of any obligations hereunder for the number of days equal to the period starting
from the commencement of the litigation or the suspension to the end of such litigation or
suspension.
20.2 Excusable Delay. In the event of changes in state or federal laws or regulations,
inclement weather, delays due to strikes, inability to obtain materials, civil commotion war acts
of terrorism, fire, acts of God, litigation, or other circumstances beyond the control of Developer
and not proximately caused by the acts or omissions of Developer that substantially interfere
with carrying out the Project or any portion thereof or with the ability of Developer to perform
its obligations under this Agreement (collectively, along with the matters set forth in Section
20.1 above, "Excusable Delay"), the parties agree to extend the time periods for the performance
of Developer's obligations impacted by the Excusable Delay. In the event an Excusable Delay
occurs, Developer shall notify the City in writing of its belief of the existence of an Excusable
Delay within thirty (30) days after the beginning of any such Excusable Delay. If the Parties
agree that an Excusable Delay exists, the time or times for performance of obligations of
Developer, as well as the Term of this Agreement, shall be extended for the period of the
Excusable Delay. This provision shall not apply to Developer's obligations under Exhibit C.
21. AGREEMENT IS ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties.
22. EXHIBITS.
The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Community Benefits
Exhibit C Affordable Housing
Exhibit D Phasing Plan
23. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to
be an original.
24. RECORDATION.
The City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution
by all parties.
[Execution Page Follows]
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the date and year first above written.
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE
CITY OF DUBLIN LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By: By: STOCKBRIDGE FUND II/EMERALD
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager PLACE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
STOCKBRIDGE PLACE INVESTMENT
COMPANY, LLC, STOCKBRIDGE FUND
E/EMERALD PLACE INVESTMENT
COMPANY, LLC, each a Delaware limited
liability company and a"Stockbridge
Member"
By: STOCKBRIDGE REAL ESTATE
PARTNERS II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, manager of each of the
foregoing
By:
Stephen Pilch
Managing Director
Attest:
Caroline Soto, City Clerk
Approved as to form
John Bakker, City Attorney
(NOTARIZATION ATTACHED)
15
Exhibit A
Lead Descrintion
The Green at Park Pface
for
Stye 2 Devebprnent Pan SutaVttaf
Land Diaserlptlon of real property situate in the City of Dublin,County of Alamed a, State of California,
being m ore particularly d escri be d as follows:
Parcels 1,2, and A of Parcel Map 9262,filed on June 19,2007,in Book 299 of Parcel Maps at Pages 69
through 79,inclusive, Official Records of Alameda County.
Excepting therefrom,that portion of Parcel I conveyed to the State of California, recorded on
September 27, 2012 as Instrument No. 2012-316839, Official Records of Alameda County.
END OF DESCR I FTON
APN 9WO03 3-005-02 Affects Parcel 1
APN 996-003 3-004 Affects Parcel A
APN 9WO03 3-006 Affects Parcel 2
Exhibit B
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The Developer shall provide a community benefit contribution in the aggregate amount
equal to the number of dwelling units in the project (currently estimated at 372) multiplied by
$7,500. The aggregate amount of the Community Benefit Contribution, based on the current
estimated unit count of 372 units, is Two Million Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars
($2,790,000) (the "Community Benefit Aggregate Contribution") and shall be paid in the
following amounts and manner, subject to Excusable Delay. The number of units attributable to
any particular neighborhood or parcel may increase up to 400 units or decrease from the
representative amounts shown on the vesting tentative map. If the number of units proposed for
Site Development Review increases or decreases, as the case may be, the Community Benefit
Contribution shall increase or decrease, by $7,500 per additional unit, and the contribution
amount below shall by increased or decreased, to reflect the number of units in each
neighborhood. The number of units shall be determined at the time a purchase and sale
agreement with a third party buyer is consummated or(if Developer or an affiliate is developing
the neighborhood),a permit is issued for the construction of a vertical building (the "Vertical
Building Permit").
1. Method and Timing of Payment.
The Project currently is planned for 372 residential units and additional commercial
development. Developer has identified six neighborhoods in the project that are depicted in the
attached diagram. The following table identifies the lots shown on the approved tentative map
that are in each neighborhood along with the proposed number of approved units in each
neighborhood:
Neighborhood Lot Nos. on No. of Units Contribution
Tentative Map Amount
1 1-16 84 $630,000
2 17-24, 27-32 93 $697,500
3 50-60 60 $450,000
4 37-42, 44-48 72 $540,000
5 33-34, 42-43 39 $292,500
6 25-26, 35-36 24 $180,000
Totals 372 $2,790,000.00
If Developer or an affiliate is developing the building, such party shall contribute the amount
associated with each neighborhood prior to issuance of the first Vertical Building Permit within
1
the neighborhood, or if a third party buyer is purchasing a portion of the Project Site, within
thirty (30) days following the close of escrow of the sale of any portion of the applicable
neighborhood.
2. Use of Community Benefit Contribution.
Initially, Developer shall pay the City forty percent (40%) of the required contributions
and deposit the remaining sixty percent (60%) of the required contribution in an escrow account
controlled by the City and Developer (the "Escrow Account"). The funds in the Escrow Account
are to be used to pay the Dublin San Ramon Services District capacity reserve fees for local and
regional sewage systems for restaurant users within the Project as directed by City and
Developer. The contributions shall be apportioned in such manner until such time as the
aggregate amount of contributions to the Escrow Account equals Eight Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($850,000). Thereafter, one hundred percent (100%) of the required
contributions shall be paid directly to the City. Any funds remaining in the Escrow Account one
year after the issuance of building permits in the project that would result in the construction of
190 or more units shall be paid to the City.
All provisions in this Exhibit B, Community Benefits, shall survive the expiration of this
Agreement.
2
ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT B
.emu
i
U 111i. 1 Gl,�ll r�f��1�A {ra
�u
Neighborhood 1 _a ��
Neighborhood 3 j
f
--- -- —�
Neghborhood2 Nei,ghborhoodo ��'`_ ��eighborhood4
u�
1 °
�o 1, � 11111Ltii111LL11J1i1111ll1i1111 i Neighborhood .ii1i111lli1i1LLWIIf1.114
3
Exhibit C
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Developer proposes the development of 372 residential units on the Property. Pursuant to
the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Chapter 8.68 of the Dublin Municipal Code) ("the
Regulations"), developers of more than 20 residential units are required to set aside 12.5% of the
units in the project as affordable units as therein specified. Developer is therefore obligated to
provide forty-seven (47) affordable units ("Affordable Housing Obligation").
Under the Regulations, certain exceptions permit developers to satisfy the obligation
other than through on-site construction. For instance, part of this obligation can be satisfied
through the payment of a fee in-lieu of construction ("In-Lieu Fees"). In addition, developers
can satisfy their affordable housing obligations by, among other mechanisms, obtaining City
Council approval of an alternative method of compliance that the City Council finds meet the
purposes of the Regulations. Developer shall satisfy its Affordable Housing Obligation through
the following "alternative method of compliance" under City Code Sec. 8.68.040E:
1. On-Site Affordable Units. The Developer shall provide over the course of the
development of the Project Site fourteen (14) affordable units within the project (the "On-Site
Units"), which number shall be adjusted to reflect thirty percent (30%) of Developer's 12.5%
affordable unit obligation, should the total number of residential units in the project increase or
decrease. Unless the Community Development Director otherwise finds that the On-Site Units
will be reasonably dispersed through the Project, the individual neighborhoods shall contain the
following number of units: Neighborhood 1, 3 units; Neighborhood 2, 4 units; Neighborhood 3,
2 units; Neighborhood 4, 3 units; Neighborhood 5, 1 unit; and Neighborhood 6, 1 unit. Dublin
Municipal Code Section 8.68.030.13 shall govern the allocation between low and moderate units
within the On-Site Units and Section 8.68.030.E shall govern unit mix and design of the On-Site
Units. Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement within 180 days of the
Effective Date of this Agreement.
2. In Lieu Fee Payments. The Developer shall pay to the City a Fee In Lieu of
Construction for 16 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation in either of the following
amounts:
(1) $1,600,000 no later than one hundred and eighty (180) days after the Effective Date
of this Agreement (subject to Excusable Delay); or
(2) An amount equal to the then-applicable Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee for 16 units
in the amount and at the time required by Resolution 56-02.
3. Affordable Housing Credits. The Developer shall purchase directly from
Eden Housing seventeen (17) affordable housing credits in an amount equal to $100,000 per
credit, or One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars in the aggregate. ($1,700,000). The
Developer shall purchase the Affordable Housing Credits from Eden no later than one hundred
and eighty (180) days from the Effective Date of this Agreement, subject to Excusable Delay
1
(the "Credit Deadline"). The credits shall be immediately applied to satisfy 17 units of the
Affordable Housing Obligation. If Eden Housing does not have such credits when Developer is
required to satisfy this obligation, then Developer will pay the City One Million Seven Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,700,000)within five (5) calendar days of the Credit Deadline. This
payment will satisfy Developer's obligation for 17 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation.
The City will use such funds to acquire affordable housing credits directly from Eden, if they are
created, and apply them retroactively to satisfy 17 units of the Affordable Housing Obligation.
4. Adjustment Based on Total Unit Count. If, for whatever reason, the total number
of dwelling units constructed on the Project Site is less than 372, the number of On-Site Units
and In-Lieu fees shall be proportionately reduced , such that the Aggregate Affordable Housing
Obligation equals 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units in the Project except that the
Aggregate Affordable Housing Obligation shall not be reduced as to In-Lieu Fees already paid or
housing credits already purchased and applied. If, for whatever reason, the total number of
dwelling units constructed on the Project Site is more than 372, the number of On-Site Units and
In-Lieu fees shall be proportionately increased, such that the Aggregate Affordable Housing
Obligation equals 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units in the Project.
5. Affordable Housing Agreement. In order to ensure compliance with Chapter 8.68
of the Dublin Municipal Code,-Developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement
prior to the issuance of the first Vertical Building Permit for the Project. The City Manager is
authorized to enter into such an agreement that is consistent with the requirements of this exhibit.
2
Exhibit D
PHASING PLAN
The Parties agree that the Project may be developed in phases and that Developer shall have the
right to develop the Project in development phases in such order and time, and with such
characteristics (subject to the Project Approvals) as Developer determines in the exercise of its
selective business judgment, except as specifically provided below:
The City may withhold building permits that would result in the development of more than 190
residential units on the Project Site until such time as Developer has obtained occupancy for
buildings 400, 500, 600, 700, and 800 as illustrated in attached diagram. The Parties
acknowledge and agree that Developer cannot control the timing of the leasing or tenancy of
such retail buildings and Developer's obligations hereunder shall not include the completion of
tenant improvements or furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
3
ATTACHMENT TO EXHIBIT D
hmYMy r "r,
n n� � N7�U J L lrvu wz�r.�.,.,���,..w...,, � ��/� �7�/✓ "�i ;
1
17
v
r�4 Y
arrfN ,I ���
k� ➢ �6
€ ,, w 1l r w
dtkiiw par r r' a �; " ypfi /) w
f
�! w
Er—(d r �3a ;s. r� w,,+� N u r"' �;,w ,,,,��` � � � � 1 >'•;lr
� � lr
�aa o a
irc vNiEru
b
Lmrr t�wf'✓r �I �u �, i 18� ; f"""°" '" d a�i/ I ra$eaP.a�h^i�ruGu 1, r
/ ..
P+161;fHGiXY 'Vol 1 BART A !1111 CM1MM„W {� f,�
th
L1.0
4
DRAFT DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
kkM�
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26,
2014, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Bhuthimethee called the
meeting to order at 7:02:07 P
Present: Chair Bhuthimethee; Vice Chair Goel; Commissioners Do, O'Keefe, and Kohli; Luke
Sims, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development
Director; Kit Faubion, City Attorney; Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner; Marnie Delgado, Senior
Planner. and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary.
Absent: None
ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA — NONE
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS — On a motion by Cm. Do and seconded by Cm. Kohli,
on a vote of 4-0-1, Cm. Goel being absent, the Planning Commission approved the minutes of
the August 12, 2014 meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
CONSENT CALENDAR.— NONE
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS — NONE
PUBLIC HEARINGS —
8.1 PLPA-2014-0017 Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and associated
amendments to the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Dublin Village
Historic Area Specific Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin Zoning
Ordinance.
Marnie Delgado, Senior Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Ms. Delgado introduced, Andrew Russell, City Engineer, who presented an overview of the
Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the term "complete streets" refers to all modes of transportation,
i.e., cars, bicycles and pedestrians.
Mr. Russell answered yes and added that it also includes mass transit, trucks, commercial and
emergency vehicles. He stated that it is important to look at the surrounding land use context
and the functional classification of the street to determine what a complete street is and
emergency vehicles are part of that.
Cm. Goel asked if there are more current statistics for collisions.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Russell responded that, at the time the update was prepared, there were no updated
statistics.
Cm. Goel asked if there were any particular areas of concern.
Mr. Russell answered that he is not aware of any areas of concern.
Cm. Goel asked, when creating the project priority list of three main projects, were any
considerations made for citywide equity.
Mr. Russell responded that the document focused on the downtown area because the
pedestrian element was noted in the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP). He stated that
some of the current developments have integrated bike lanes and sidewalk as connections to
transit, but he was not aware of a decision made for equity across the city. It was discussed in
the workshops and was a focus of the participants.
Cm. Goel asked if the plan identifies areas where current businesses are located or future
development not yet built (i.e., paths to and from Fallon Gateway, Lowes and the Kaiser parcel).
Mr. Russell answered yes; he stated that the plan identifies approximately $10 million of bike
improvements and $5 million of pedestrian improvements outside of the priority projects. He
stated that the vast majority of bike improvements are slated to be completed by the developer
or property owner who is responsible for frontage improvements, i.e., sidewalk, curb and gutter,
a bike lane and a lane of traffic. He felt it would be a $7 million-$2.5 million split between what
the developer would fund and what the city would need to integrate into a Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP).
Cm. Goel asked if there is a section in the plan that addresses public perception related to
citywide equity. He felt that the priority list includes only west side projects and nothing on the
east.
Mr. Russell felt that the master plan would not be the venue to discuss that issue. He stated
that, as Dublin has developed, infrastructure has been built to support the development, and in
areas where the property owner has not developed the property, the City would not expect the
infrastructure to be completed which can cause connectivity issues at times. He stated that,
where possible, the City has tried to integrate temporary pedestrian and bike facilities if there is
room, but there is a cost and the City Council would need to prioritize those expenditures.
Cm. Goel referred to "access to and from schools" in the plan and asked what the school
district's concerns were.
Mr. Russell responded that the focus of the 2007 plan was connectivity to trails, parks and
recreation activities, as well as bike lanes on streets. Staff worked with the school district on the
Safe Routes to School program. He felt that the school district was concerned with taking
school impacts into consideration as projects are approved. He stated that environmental
documents are always shared with the school district. He stated that there is a project under
construction currently that hopes to provide bike transit opportunities to Dublin High School
which would be the integration of a buffered bike lane on Village Parkway. He stated that Staff
presented the concept to the City Council as a complete streets element that can be integrated
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
because the right-of-way exists, and simply re-stripe the street and improve active transportation
to and from the high school to downtown Dublin.
Cm. Kohli asked about the progress of discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding a
joint solution to the overcrossing issue.
Mr. Russell stated that the 2007 plan identified the freeway overcrossing as a concern of
bicyclists and it was identified in the update as a concern for both bicyclists and pedestrians. He
stated that Staff meets regularly with the City of Pleasanton and that the City of Pleasanton is
conducting a project at San Ramon Road/Foothill Road and 1-580 that will integrate bike lanes.
He stated that Staff is meeting with the City of Pleasanton and Cal Trans on August 27, 2014 to
discuss the issue.
Cm. Kohli expressed concern with pedestrian/bike safety at the Fallon Road/El Charro Road
overcrossing.
Mr. Russell responded that the freeway on-ramps and overcrossings are controlled by CalTrans;
the city limit line is on the north side of the freeway so they have to work with Pleasanton on any
issue. He stated that the previous improvements did not have the "complete streets" philosophy
in their design; therefore, there is not adequate room for pedestrians and bikes. He stated that
Staff realizes the need for those improvements and the hope is to identify funding sources and
work with CalTrans and Pleasanton to team up on projects. The overcrossings are an element
of the current plan that is important. The Alamo Canal Trail is an example of linking Dublin to
Pleasanton, totally separate from vehicle traffic, which is an ideal situation, but limited in
applicability to the rest of the City.
Cm. Kohli asked what the best time estimate would be for a resolution between the stakeholders
regarding the overcrossing issue.
Mr. Russell was unsure when the issue would be resolved. He stated that he is not aware of
any specific project that either Dublin or Pleasanton is working on with CalTrans beyond the
Pleasanton project on Foothill Road. He stated that, as future development comes up,
pedestrian and bike facilities will be integrated. He felt that Staff has confidence in the Plan and
crossing the freeway is extremely important and Pleasanton acknowledges the same thing.
Cm. Kohli agreed and felt that everyone agrees that it needs to be expedited.
Chair Bhuthimethee was concerned with the safety of the overpass at San Ramon Road/Foothill
Road and 1-580 within Dublin.
Mr. Russell received some concerns regarding the current conditions and the Public Works Staff
is meeting with Pleasanton and CalTrans to discuss potential alternatives.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked Mr. Russell to share some of Staff's discussions regarding the bike
lanes on Dublin Blvd. She felt that the connectivity and safety along Dublin Blvd is not the best,
especially when there are not a lot of alternatives.
Mr. Russell responded that the Dublin Blvd corridor was mentioned in the 2007 plan and was
extensively studied for the update. He stated that one of the original alternatives was widening
Dublin Blvd to allow for a paved bike lane and the 6 lanes of traffic. He mentioned some near
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
term solutions were discussed, such as widening the sidewalk on the south side, and reducing
the lanes from 6 to 4. He stated that options are limited due to the fact that Dublin Blvd is a
reliever route to the freeway and a major east/west connector. He stated that, after a
community meeting, there was a suggestion that there should be something to formalize that
bikes have the right to be on the road. The solution was to install "sharrows" and signing on
Dublin Blvd as a bike route. He felt that there could be some room to narrow the lanes closest
to the medians and provide a wider lane along the curb. He stated that the plan attempts to
cover a wide spectrum of bike users, and a lot of people are not comfortable on Dublin Blvd.
Cyclists can ride on the sidewalk and the City will provide sharrows on the street. He stated that
they are also looking for alternatives to Dublin Blvd. He felt that St. Patrick Way will be an
alternative route and improvements under the freeway for both bikes and pedestrians will be
installed. Staff does not want to create a project that will cost millions of dollars but has a
limited chance to be funded. He cautioned that to widen or narrow the road would create delays
and congestion which Staff could not support; therefore, Staff went to City Council for direction.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if the City could ask new tenants to include bicycle racks.
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that, under the Green Building
Code for tenant improvements, new tenants would be required to provide bike parking.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing.
Kristi Marleau, resident and board member of Bike East Bay, spoke in favor of the project.
Rich Guarienti, resident, spoke in favor of the project. He was concerned with connectivity
within the City and felt that the Planning Commission should take that into consideration when
reviewing each new development. He felt the biggest challenges were Dublin Blvd. and the
freeway overcrossings.
Bill Anderson, resident, spoke regarding the project and was concerned with connectivity
(east/west) within the City, the safety of Dublin Blvd. and the overcrossings.
Chair Bhuthimethee closed the public hearing.
Mr. Russell responded to the comment regarding east/west connections in the City. He stated
that the plan includes improvements along Dublin Blvd as well as the intersection of Village
Pkwy. and Amador Valley Blvd is intended to be retrofitted to be more pedestrian friendly.
Cm. Kohli stated that he is in support of the project, and asked that Staff provide an update to
the Planning Commission on their discussions with Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the
overcrossing issue. He asked the other Commissioners if they had any suggestions regarding
how to make Dublin Blvd safer for bikes.
Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with Cm. Kohli but felt that, if the City is committed to encouraging a
healthy community and wants the residents to do more walking and biking, the City must be
committed to solving these types of problems.
Cm. Kohli felt that Staff has done a great job of working with the stakeholders, but the
overcrossing issue is out of our hands because it involves another cities and CalTrans. He
asked if the Planning Commission can recommend a more sense of urgency regarding that
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
issue. He suggested more organized sessions that bring in City Council, Commissioners, and
community members to continue to keep it a topic. He understood the limitations and
suggested working with developers who want to build along the Dublin Blvd. corridor to bring
other ideas forward. He asked if anyone had any further ideas on how to help with the process.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that there are two options to address Dublin Blvd. and neither option will work
and for reasons that are outside the Planning Commission purview. He felt that the issue has
been reviewed thoroughly and it's been determined that it is not possible.
Cm. Goel stated that there is a county-wide bike and pedestrian plan that was developed, with
input from the cities within the county. The county plan also works towards procurement of
funds and identification of priority projects. Dublin's priority projects will be identified at the
county wide level and they also prioritize key corridor elements. He stated that the county-wide
plan is under review currently by the Transportation Commission for Alameda County and the
coordination between the various cities and CalTrans is communicated to the Commission. He
felt that the plan is comprehensive. He stated that there is some gridlock near BART corridor
and that developers should consider pedestrian overpasses and critical corridors for
underpasses and connectivity to trails and retail. He congratulated Staff for their hard work on
the plan. He stated that he is in support of the plan.
Cm. Do commended Staff for their work on the plan, is in support of the plan and can't wait to
see it implemented.
Cm. O'Keefe thanked Cm. Goel for explaining the document and providing feedback. He stated
that he is in support of the project.
Chair Bhuthimethee agreed with the other Commissioners and thanked the public who
commented and participated in the workshops. She commended Staff for their hard work which
shows the City's commitment to pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. She stated that when the
Planning Commission and Staff review developments, connectivity is part of that review
because it is important to the Planning Commission. She felt that marking lanes is essential for
safe travels.
Cm. Kohli felt the plan is solid and asked Staff to provide an update on the discussion with the
City of Pleasanton and CalTrans regarding the overcrossing issue. He also encouraged the City
Council, the public, Staff and the Commission to come up with suggestions to improve on the
plan.
On a motion by Cm. Goel and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission
unanimously adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE DUBLIN
GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE HISTORIC AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND DUBLIN ZONING
ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF DUBLIN
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1111,�anntnfl Gmrtrni�s�m ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
CITY OF DUBLIN BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO
THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN, EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN, DUBLIN VILLAGE
HISTORIC AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, DOWNTOWN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND
DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE
8.2 PLPA-2013-00013 The Green Mixed Use Project - General Plan Amendment, Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only),
Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report.
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report.
Cm. Kohli asked how long the land has been designated commercial.
Ms. Bascom answered that the land has been designated commercial since 2004. She stated
that the land was originally campus office but was changed to commercial when the IKEA
project was approved in 2004.
Cm. Kohli asked if the current Applicant has been involved with the land since the beginning.
Ms. Bascom answered yes; the current Applicant was involved with the IKEA project as well as
the 305,000 sf commercial center.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing.
Jerry Hunt, Applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He pointed out that, when developing the
current project, they took into consideration not just the property, but the surrounding properties
and how they would be affected by the project. The Green project was designed to create a
public gathering space, with a sense of pride for the community with quality restaurants and
residential that will complement Persimmon Place. He also stated that there will be multiple
bike racks and they will be installing bike lanes on Martinelli Way and Arnold Road.
Hans Baldauf, Architect, spoke in favor of the project. He stated that the Applicant wanted to
optimize the location and its proximity to a transit oriented district; the retail portion of the site is
within a 10 minute walking distance to the BART station and pointed out the connectivity with
the surrounding uses. He stated that they designed the project to complement the Persimmon
Place project. He also spoke regarding the architecture for the commercial portion and
presented a video fly-by showing the project; he added comments regarding the wind study that
was done, as well as the type of shade that will be available at the project.
1111,�anntnfl Gmrnni�s�m ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Do asked about their plan for delivery trucks at the service entrances for the commercial
component, and if they have a plan to prevent BART riders from parking at the project.
Mr. Hunt responded that there will be security monitoring of the parking lot as the retail tenants
will require it. He stated that most of the commercial tenants will be smaller businesses that will
require only small trucks for deliveries. He stated that the service areas will operate and
function like a small pad building.
Mr. Baldauf stated that most deliveries would occur in the double loaded parking field at the rear
of the buildings, early in the day, before most customer parking will occur. He stated that the
double loaded parking on each side allows the street to be closed and access is still provided.
With street closures, they can actually gain space on special days.
Cm. Kohli complimented the Applicant for their presentation and thanked Staff for their work on
the project. He felt that, with The Persimmon project being built, it seems like there is an uptake
in retail wanting to come into Dublin. He asked what market trends they studied and what drove
the Applicant towards the mixed-use development instead of staying with the commercial land
use designation and bringing a development forward that is pure commercial/retail.
Mr. Hunt answered that he has always done retail projects, not residential. He felt that the
original Green project would have been a wonderful project, but the market changed and the
nature of retail business changed. He felt that there is not enough depth in retail to build
300,000 sf of retail/commercial on their property in addition to the 165,000 sf at Persimmon
Place. He felt that there are few transit oriented district opportunities in the Bay Area and this is
the best and the most important. He did not feel that a car dealer or a big box store would be
appropriate on the property. He stated that he tried to create a project that brings two acres of
public amenities.
Chair Bhuthimethee noticed from the EIR that there is no sound wall along 1-580 and asked if it
will be part of the residential portion.
Mr. Hunt responded that the Planning Commission will be able to review that part of the project
when the Site Development Review for the residential portion comes forward.
Mr. Baker clarified that the Planning Commission is reviewing and making a recommendation on
the environmental document.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked to see a site plan of the project and asked about the green circles
shown along 1-580.
Bill Smith, Smith and Smith Landscape Architect, pointed out the CalTrans line along 1-580. He
stated that, behind the fence on the site side, there are many substructure utilities. In between
the utilities they are proposing to plant evergreen trees and vegetation to help break up the
area. He stated that they are proposing a multi-use trail in the area that will connect to Iron
Horse Trail.
Chair Bhuthimethee was under the impression that there would be no trees in that area.
Mr. Smith stated that they will work with CalTrans to determine where they can plant trees and
shrubs.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Bhuthimethee mentioned that the EIR stated an issue is air quality and one mitigation
measure is, to the greatest degree possible, to plant vegetation, trees and shrubs along project
site boundary along I-580.
Ms. Bascom stated that the landscape plan included in the packet, Sheet L.13.0, is the concept
landscape plan that the Planning Commission will review. She stated that there is a Condition
of Approval for the project that states, should the Applicant be able to enhance the area with
trees and additional landscaping, Staff will support that. She wanted to ensure that the Planning
Commission understood that this area may not be a lushly landscaped area. She added that
Staff will mandate that the Applicant do whatever they can to landscape the area, but there is no
guarantee of landscaping in that area due to utility conflicts.
Eddie Sieu, RJA, spoke regarding the public utilities and storm drain easements on the south
perimeter of the project that include gas lines, telephone lines, joint trench and an 84" storm
drain. Those utilities currently exist and trees will be planted between them to satisfy the utility
agencies requirements for horizontal separation.
Ms. Bascom stated that Staff asked the Applicant to show in the plan a realistic depiction of
what will be there.
Chair Bhuthimethee asked if another crosswalk could be installed across Hacienda Drive, on the
south side of Martinelli Way, at the Lazy Dog Cafe to the new development.
Obaid Khan, Traffic Engineer, responded that Public Works has reviewed the issue of
connecting the current project to Hacienda Crossings by enhancing the crosswalks with textures
to match Martinelli Way. He stated that, in order to enhance connectivity, the Applicant has
proposed to convert the road, running parallel to the 580 freeway, to a Class I trail (bike and
pedestrian trail) and creating a cul-de-sac at the end of Arnold Road which will provide a
connection from Hacienda Crossings to the BART station. He stated that cyclist or pedestrians
can use the Class I bike trail to avoid using Dublin Blvd.
Mr. Baker felt that the question was about an additional crosswalk at the south side of Martinelli
Way which would connect to the new development and asked Mr. Khan to explain why there will
not be an enhanced crosswalk at that corner.
Mr. Khan asked Chair Bhuthimethee if she was requesting that a crosswalk be added on the
south side of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
Chair Bhuthimethee responded that, when reviewing the Lazy Dog Cafe project, the Planning
Commission had requested a crosswalk across Hacienda Drive from Hacienda Crossing to
Building 100 of the current project.
Mr. Khan stated that there is a crosswalk on the north side of that intersection but he understood
that Chair Bhuthimethee was requesting a new crosswalk on the south side.
Chair Bhuthimethee answered yes.
Mr. Khan stated that currently Hacienda Drive is a very busy street and creating more
crosswalks will change the signal timing at the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
He stated that the signal operates with overlapping turn lanes, so when one movement goes
another can happen at the same time and they are going in different directions. He stated that
they don't want to put pedestrian where cars are running throughout the signal cycle. He stated
that if they added a crosswalk it would impact the timing of the signal and will cause a problem
with back up on the freeway. He agreed to review the issue and determine if there is a way to
do what she asked but stated that another crosswalk is not included in the plan.
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she was opposed to pollarded trees and felt it was unnatural
and they would not hold up with the wind in Dublin. However, considering the context and the
presentation she felt that they will fit the space. She requested that they not include the
pollarded trees in the residential area.
Mr. Baldauf agreed.
Cm. Kohli asked if the Applicant had given any thought to locating the residential portion away
from the freeway, keeping it close to BART and introducing more retail/restaurant uses that he
felt would be a better fit adjacent to Hacienda Crossings and the Persimmon Place project.
Mr. Baldauf responded that they believed that they could provide a quality mix of tenants and
with Persimmon Place taking most of the quality tenants in the market, they didn't feel they
wanted to try to be the junior brother in the area but wanted to do something that is organized in
a way that fits two goals; 1) to create the community gathering space that was part of the
previous Green at Park Place project, and by turning the orientation gave a wind sheltering
effect, 2) the orientation to Persimmon Place was very important, so by orienting it as an
extension of Persimmon Place, gives their project a larger position within the community.
Mr. Hunt agreed and assured the Planning Commission that over the years they have looked at
every scenario. He felt that this is a difficult rectangular site to design. He stated that the main
entry must remain where it is, which was the former IKEA Way, there is no access onto
Hacienda Drive, only have right-in/right-out on the east side and felt that if the retail were shifted
there would be more land than tenants.
Chair Bhuthimethee opened the public hearing, and having no speakers, closed the public
hearing.
Cm. Do stated that she is in support of the project and excited to see the community gathering
place which is important to the residents.
Cm. O'Keefe stated that he is in support of the project. He liked that it is close to the transit
oriented district and the architecture gave him the "wow" that the City Council was looking for.
He felt it was different and liked the community gathering place. He thanked the Applicant for
enhancing the service doors because a lot of homeowners will be looking at them. He
appreciated their attention to detail in their design.
Cm. Goel referred to Page 5 of the FSEIR document regarding schools and student generation.
He stated that the letter speculated 60 students for the project and asked Ms. Bascom to
comment.
Ms. Bascom referred to the letter from the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) dated July 9th
that stated the estimate which is based on the unit count and the unit type for the project.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Goel asked what the estimated number of students.
Ms. Bascom responded that the estimate was 60-70 elementary students and a smaller amount
of middle and high school students.
Cm. Goel did not agree with that number and asked for the total number of units again.
Ms. Bascom responded that there are a total of 372 townhome and condo units.
Cm. Goel was concerned about the 2013/14 numbers from the school district and felt the
number in the EIR is off by several hundred and he is not supportive of that. He was also
concerned with traffic and the level of service at the adjacent intersections.
Cm. Khan asked which intersection he was referring to.
Cm. Goel answered that he was referring to all the intersections in a half mile radius.
Mr. Khan referred the Planning Commission to the Draft SEIR which lists long term cumulative
conditions for signalized intersections which found that there was only one signalized
intersection that was found as a significant impact (Scarlett Drive and Dublin Blvd). He stated
that the concern was because of the pedestrian crossing at the Iron Horse Trail. He added that
when reviewing the Dublin Crossing project, one of the mitigations could be a bridge. He stated
that the City is moving forward with the feasibility study for the overcrossing bridge later this
year. In terms of the concern on Hacienda Drive, Staff did a signalized intersection analysis and
arterial level of service analysis and found that the arterial level of increase volume to capacity
ratio of 2% Hacienda Drive intersection due to the current project. He stated that he was
referring to 2035 numbers.
There was a discussion regarding traffic, the level of service at intersections in proximity to the
project and the mitigations for significant and unavoidable impacts.
Mr. Khan stated that the Alameda County Transportation Commission and CalTrans have
challenged the City to ensure that they are not impacting bike and pedestrian access if
completing mitigation. They also requested that Dublin not complete mitigation at Dublin Blvd
and Arnold Road because it could impact bike and pedestrian access; at the same time, Staff
doesn't want to create a situation where they can't use the intersection. He felt that adding a
lane or widening the road is not possible. He stated that the State is also requiring an increase
to the walking time for pedestrians at intersections. He stated that at every place that they tried
to address the mitigation, it would require either widening the road or taking the existing property
from already existing development, which is not viable.
Cm. Goel asked, if the project remained commercial, would that impact go away.
Mr. Khan did not have that answer because that was not part of the analysis.
Ms. Bascom stated that the IKEA SEIR had a traffic analysis that was specific to that project and
the 300,000 sf commercial project, approved in 2008. Without referring to the IKEA SEIR to see
what mitigation measures would have been required, the proposed project will have fewer daily
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
trips, fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and slightly more p.m. peak hour trips than either of the
commercial projects.
Cm. Goel asked what the height limit is for the residential structures along 1-580.
Ms. Bascom stated that the height limit is in the PD Ordinance but felt it was 45-50 feet.
Cm. Goel felt that 45-50 feet was taller than a sound wall.
Ms. Bascom stated that there is no sound wall proposed for this project.
Cm. Goel stated that part of the sound mitigation was to not allow balconies facing 1-580, and to
use sound barrier treatment on the residential facilities. He was concerned that the residential
component was not included in the fly-over video but the Planning Commission is being asked
to recommend the environmental piece associated with it.
Cm. Kohli felt that Cm. Goel brought excellent points regarding traffic and environmental issues.
He stated that he shares the enthusiasm of Cm. Do and O'Keefe about this type of project
coming to Dublin. He had thought that this parcel of land would be some sort of lifestyle center,
similar to Santana Row or just pure commercial/retail that would complement Hacienda
Crossings. He felt that other new retail centers are growing and in certain situations he likes the
idea of Mixed Use and felt that the Applicant has done a good job of trying to bring this spirit to
Dublin, but he felt it was a residential project masked as Mixed Use. He stated that he would
like to see less residential and more retail/restaurant, because whatever is built will remain for a
long time. He felt that more retail businesses are being attracted to Dublin and commend the
Applicant for thinking through the project, but he felt that the Planning Commission has a
responsibility to make the right recommendation to the City Council for the best type of project
and he did not feel he can support the project under the Mixed Use designation unless the
Planning Commission suggests a Condition of Approval that requires reduced residential. He
felt that he could not approve a re-designation for this project.
Cm. Goel stated that, after seeing the video fly-over, he saw a well thought-out project with a
community element, a nice business facility, and good ambiance at the center. He was
concerned with the residential component being so close to 1-580 and the BART line as well as
other traffic concerns for residents. He was also concerned with the phasing of the residential
component which he felt would be built from the worst spot with the lowest return inward
towards the retail. He asked what will happen if the market changes. He stated that there will
be tall art and potentially very high residential structures and was concerned that Persimmon
Place would be hidden and would not create a magnet into the City. He felt that the "sense of
place" that the Planning Commission has wanted would be shielded by building residential right
next to 1-580. He stated that he didn't know which was better; developing the project and going
bankrupt or developing the project and it remains empty. He felt the plan is premature and that
there are better opportunities. He stated that he likes the center gathering space with the retail
component, but was not sure about the vehicle movement in the center, although it works at
Santana Row and could work for this project. He stated that he has heard people ask for small
commercial space, small work-live spaces, but they don't have anywhere in Dublin to go. He
was concerned about school impacts and rapid growth in Dublin with this project increasing
those numbers. He was concerned with traffic impacts of the project. He stated that if the
project was strictly commercial he could support it, but he looks at the project as a whole and
could not support it.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Chair Bhuthimethee stated that she shares some Cm. Kohli and Cm. Goel's concerns regarding
traffic, the addition of residential and the school impacts. She felt that the project is very unique
and it would be a waste of its proximity to the TOD if it were full commercial. She felt that this is
where you want to allow people to walk have a connection to mass transit. She felt it is
appropriate project, close to that BART station, where residents can walk to the residential and
commercial, but if it was full commercial people would drive there. She felt it was a good
transition project. She felt it is a good, quality project and appropriate in this location. She was
impressed with the building architecture, and has been waiting for statement architecture to
come to Dublin. She stated that Pleasanton or San Ramon has nothing like this, and the
sculpture element and the huge trees make it unique. She commended the Applicant for
including the huge trees. She pointed out the trees on Sheet L-12 which will make the project
feel like it's been there for quite a while. The new and different architecture along with the site
elements, are also reflective of style. Interior images are very compelling with a "wow" factor
and she would love to see this project completed. She stated that she likes the lighting design.
The design team was right to address the back-of-building and agreed with Cm. O'Keefe that
those sorts of views of all sides of the building are important to the Planning Commission. She
agreed with Cm. Goel regarding the buildings at Persimmon Place not being outward facing, but
she felt this is a lifestyle center with the residential component and the unique commercial
component and a lot of the spaces are well detailed with a lot of thought into it. She stated that
she is in support of the project.
Cm. O'Keefe responded to Cm. Goel's comments regarding noise and view; he felt it is a
personal preference and stated that he likes to be lively and hear what's going on, and some
people don't have a preference for quiet. He stated that he would not support a sound wall and
did not have a problem with not being able to see Whole Foods from the freeway. There will be
a buzz about the project and it will be a destination development. He was not concerned with
people not finding their way to the development. He stated that he is in support of the project
and respectfully disagreed with Cm. Goel.
Chair Bhuthimethee felt that Cm. Goel was concerned with the views from 1-580 but stated that
Staff understands that the Planning Commission wants to see enhanced elevations on public
corridors and felt that the Applicant will produce nice elevations for the residential portion.
Mr. Baker reminded the Planning Commission that the residential component will come back for
the Site Development Review as a future agenda item. He stated that the Applicant is working
on addressing the elevations facing the freeway, and project identity, both of which were
discussed at the City Council Study Session in July. He added that the current proposal is for
three story buildings which are not overly tall.
Cm. Goel responded to Chair Bhuthimethee regarding the TOD. He stated that the Applicant
showed the picture of the boundaries which is considered ideal TOD, but the middle portion of
the project is the furthest. He felt that there are still a lot of units being built in the area, a lot of
foot traffic and that the City is missing an opportunity to create a daytime magnet that is not
there with residential. He did not feel comfortable recommending approval of a CEQA document
that will be referred to however many years it takes to complete. He felt it could be built in 2
years or it could be 10 years and then the Applicant will be pointing to a document that gave
them the entitlement. He felt that there will be a truth at some point and the ability to build this
project. He felt that there is a reason why the commercial is being submitted first.
111fanning Gmnrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Mr. Baker stated that the Development Agreement (DA) includes language regarding the timing
of the project to ensure that the commercial as well as the residential will be built. He stated
that the DA states that the Applicant can only move so far with residential project before
showing progress on the commercial, the fact that the residential is not part of this submittal is
not indicative of the timing of the construction of the project, but is related to preparation of the
plans and moving the project forward.
Cm. Goel asked if the Applicant will move forward with the residential first.
Mr. Baker stated that he would defer to the Applicant on how they will phase the project;
however, if they want to move forward with residential first, they won't go very far because they
must build the commercial as well.
Cm. Goel asked what percentage the DA requires.
Mr. Baker stated they must receive occupancy of buildings 400, 5007 6007 700 and 800 by the
time they reach the 190th residential building permit. He felt that the Applicant would need to
build concurrently in order to meet that requirement.
Cm. Goel asked if that is a trigger that binds them as opposed to helping the Applicant. He also
asked who brought up that issue.
Mr. Baker stated that it is a trigger that ensures that commercial is built before the residential.
He answered that the Staff, working with the Applicant, and discussing the issue with the City
Council.
Mr. Baker mentioned two edits need to be made to the approval documents and he wanted to
discuss the voting.
Ms. Bascom stated that a statement needs to be added to the PD Ordinance that states that this
PD Ordinance supersedes and replaces any previous PD Ordinances. Also, in the resolutions,
in the first "Whereas" it references Zoning Ordinance Amendments in addition to the Planned
Development Rezone, the text that references Zoning Ordinance Amendments will be deleted.
Mr. Baker suggested voting on each item individually and make motions for each
recommendation which he felt would make the process go as smoothly as possible.
Cm. O'Keefe stressed that he would ideally like to see the project have two story housing and
he'd also like to see some office space for small 15-30 employee businesses. He felt that would
be a more ideal project but looking at where the project has been and all the effort that has gone
into it, he did not want to hold up the project or vote against it.
Chair Bhuthimethee understood Cm. O'Keefe's concern but felt that there are three story
townhomes in less dense areas, but it seems appropriate because they will be by the freeway
and next to high density buildings and the scale of the property next to it is commercial office
space so it fits with that scale.
Cm. O'Keefe felt that if the housing were two-story, with higher retail buildings in the middle, it
would highlight the view from the overpass and make it more of a focal point.
111fanning Gamrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
Cm. Kohli responded to Cm. O'Keefe's comments that the City has waited to bring forward a
project on this site and now have an opportunity to do it and this is a good enough project to
move forward. His concern was that whatever is built will remain for a long time, and in the last
year there has been an increase in commercial/retail development. He asked what if in two
years there was a project submitted that was Mixed Use with one third of the residential units,
and some being live-work units and more retail. He felt that the Planning Commission might say
that would be the ideal project that they had in mind but then it would be too late. He felt that
waiting for the right project is worth it.
Cm. Goel felt that the reality is that Dublin has very few vacant parcels for development and this
is prime property and there will be an opportunity to develop it, maybe not today or tomorrow but
soon. He felt that the Planning Commission will make the decision for Dublin's future.
Cm. Do asked if the project is approved as mixed use and the townhomes are built in three
stories, can the first floor as be used as a workplace.
Ms. Bascom answered that the PD ordinance would allow home occupations but the
homeowner could not run a retail storefront. Any home occupation that would be allowed in any
other neighborhood would be allowed in this development.
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 14— 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
1111,�anntnfl Gmrtrni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 14-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 27.5
ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no and the correction mentioned, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
RESOLUTION NO. 14-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Do, on a vote of 3-2, with Cm. Goel and
Cm. Kohli voting no, the Planning Commission adopted:
NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS — NONE
OTHER BUSINESS - NONE
1111,anntnfl Gmruni�sion ,4,26,20(4
DRAFT DRAFT
10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to
meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234).
ADJOURNMENT— The meeting was adjourned at 10:22:54 P
Respectfully submitted,
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Jeff Baker
Assistant Community Development Director
G:WINUTESI20141PLANNING COMMISSIONI08.26.14 DRAFT PC MINUTES.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 14 - 47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
UNDER CEQA FOR THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of
future retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas on a 27.5 acre site.
The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project";
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified
a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93,
and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereinafter "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "program EIR"),
which is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference.
The program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect
effects, cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and areawide mitigation measures for
developing Eastern Dublin, including the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and
1
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study dated July 11, 2013 ("Initial Study") for the
Project consistent with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 in order to determine if a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR was required
under CEQA standards. The Initial Study determined that a supplement to the Eastern Dublin
EIR would be prepared to address certain environmental impacts of the Project. The Initial
Study also concluded that many of the environmental impacts of the Project were within the
scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR adequately described
and analyzed these impacts for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated July 12, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on July 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft
SEIR) dated May 2014 for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is attached
as Exhibit A to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 7, 2014 to June 3,
2014 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received six comment letters from State, regional, and local
agencies and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the
requirements of CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during
the public comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to
Comments), dated August 2014, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of
each comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR is
attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. The complete
The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together.
The responses to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the
environmental issues raised by the comments; and
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project for the Planning Commission and contained information on
the Final SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Report, the Final SEIR,
including comments and responses, and certified Eastern Dublin EIR at a noticed public hearing
on August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
2
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be
reduced to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures. Approval of the
project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations
and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
of the project and approval of the project by the City Council will therefore require adoption of
Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, Eastern Dublin EIR and all of the documents relating to the
Project are available for review in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-
2013-00013, during normal business hours. The location and custodian of the Final SEIR and
other documents that constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2012-
00031.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings and recommendations to the City Council on the Final SEIR and
the environmental review of the Project under CEQA:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
B. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines
and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines.
C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the Final SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft
SEIR review period and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing,
prior to making its recommendation on the proposed Project.
D. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the proposed Project. The Final SEIR provides information to
the decision-makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the proposed
Project.
E. The Final SEIR adequately describes the proposed Project, its significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Dublin Planning Commission hereby recommends
that, prior to the approval of the Project, the City Council certify the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council make all required, mitigation and alternatives findings, adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 7-PC Reso FSEIR.docx
4
RESOLUTION NO. 14— 48
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN AND THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project as proposed requires that certain amendments be
made to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan so that the two documents are
consistent with the proposed mix of commercial and residential uses on the site; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for
the project site is proposed to be amended from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use" to enable
the construction of retail/restaurant uses in addition to Medium-High Density Residential uses
coordinated in a master-planned development on one project site. In addition, other provisions
of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to ensure
consistency with the proposed land use designation for this 27.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated May 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and
analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated from May 7, 2014 to June 23, 2014 (45 days)
for public comment; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the Draft SEIR were reviewed and responded to, and
the Final EIR (that contains the Response to Comments) dated August 2014 was prepared; and
WHEREAS, consistent with section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the City
obtained a contact list of local Native American tribes from the Native American Heritage
Commission and notified the tribes on the contact list of the opportunity to consult with the City
on the proposed General Plan Amendment. None of the contacted tribes requested a
consultation within the 90-day statutory consultation period and no further action is required
under section 65352.3; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the
Project, including the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, on
August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final SEIR, all above-referenced
reports, recommendations, and testimony to evaluate the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the General Plan to reflect changes resulting from approval of
the project, as follows:
• Amend Figure 1-1 (Land Use Map) to change the land use designation for the
project site from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use"; and
• Modify Table 2.2 (Land Use Development Potential: Eastern Extended Planning
Area) to reflect the change in land use designation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve amendments to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reflect changes resulting
from approval of the project, as follows:
• Amend Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) to change the land use designation for the
project site from "General Commercial" to "Mixed Use";
• Modify Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary);
• Modify Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment
Summary);
• Modify Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance); and
• Modify Table 4.11 (Hacienda Gateway Subarea Development Potential).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council find the amendments are in the public interest, promote general health, safety and
welfare, and that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as so amended, will
remain internally consistent.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following
vote:
2
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 2-PC Reso SP and GPA.docx
3
RESOLUTION NO. 14-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 27.5
ACRES AT 5144 AND 5344 MARTINELLI WAY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE RELATED STAGE 1 AND 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a Planning
Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant buildings with
associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development
Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development
Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and
certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions.
These planning and implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project"
or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the development project requires that the project site be
rezoned to a new Planned Development Zoning District with approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage
2 Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) dated
August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis
of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project,
including the Planned Development Rezone and a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan on
August 26, 2014 at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours;
and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at
City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its
independent judgment prior to making a recommendation on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby adopt a
Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attached as Exhibit A) rezoning
27.5 acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Drive to a Planned Development Zoning District and approve
the related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for The Green Mixed Use Project, based on
findings in the attached Ordinance, including but not limited to, that the Planned Development zoning
and project as a whole is consistent and in conformance with the General Plan as proposed, is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planned Development zoning district, and that
development of the proposed project will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future
development in the surrounding area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:1PM20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.14Ott xx-PC Reso PD Ord.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 14-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND
STOCKBRIDGE/BHV EMERALD PLACE LAND COMPANY LLC RELATING TO
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013
(APNS 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, a request has been made by Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land
Company LLC ("Applicant") to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Dublin for
the property known as The Green Mixed Use Project site, which includes properties identified
by Assessor Parcel Numbers 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, and 986-0033-006-00,
encompassing approximately 27.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant is proposing to obtain approvals for a development project that
includes the construction of six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple buildings
and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail
and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and a full range of site
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the project is the subject of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2013072032. On August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission
approved Resolution 14-xx, recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the
project, and adopt CEQA findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. The Development Agreement was part of the
Project analyzed in the SEIR and the impacts of the activities under the Development
Agreement were analyzed in the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement is attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit A-1; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of the public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Development
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings and determinations
regarding the proposed Development Agreement:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, and in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan in that: (a) the Development Agreement incorporates the objectives,
policies, general land uses and programs in the General Plan and Specific Plan (as amended);
and (b) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General Plan and Specific Plan
with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public services.
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the
Development Agreement does not amend the uses or regulations in the applicable land use
district.
3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general
welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use
guidelines set forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the General Plan as articulated in
Resolution No. xx-14, amending the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted by the City Council
on ) 2014.
4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and
general welfare in that the Developer's proposed project will proceed in accordance with all the
programs and policies of the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and future Project
Approvals and Conditions of Approval.
5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of
property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consistent with the
General Plan (as amended), the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and future Project
Approvals.
6. The Development Agreement specifies the duration of the agreement, the
permitted uses of the property, the density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of
proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes.
The Development Agreement contains an indemnity and insurance clause requiring the
developer to indemnify and hold the City harmless against claims arising out of the development
process, including all legal fees and costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance, attached as
Exhibit A, approving the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC related to The Green Mixed Use Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26 n day of August 2014.
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Page 2 of 3
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPA120131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 6-PC Reso DA.docx
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 14-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PERMIT FOR THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203 FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT
PLPA-2013-00013 (APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct approximately 37,000 square feet of retail and restaurant
buildings with associated outdoor seating areas and six future residential neighborhoods with
372 units in multiple buildings on a 27.5 acre site. The proposal includes the approval of
General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to
a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative
Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report, among other related actions. These planning and implementing actions are collectively
known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the current request includes Vesting Tentative Map 8203 to subdivide the
entire 27.5 acre parcel, however, the proposed Site Development Review is only for the
commercial component of the project. The Site Development Review application for the
residential buildings is not being considered at this time and will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at a later date; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located within a Planned Development Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans, attached as Exhibit A, illustrate the site layout and building
elevations for the eight future Commercial Buildings on the project site, which comprise
approximately 37,000 square feet of future retail and restaurant buildings with associated
outdoor seating areas, which are permitted by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General
Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Project Plans also illustrate the proposed subdivision of a single 27.5
acre parcel into 96 separate parcels (1 commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels, and 35 parcels
for future streets, parking, and common areas, ranging in size from 0.1 acres to 5.8 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) and Vesting
Tentative Map application collectively defines this "Project" and is available and on file in the
Community Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
dated August 2014 for the proposed Project which reflected the City's independent judgment
and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated August 26, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project, including the General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District
and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
(Commercial Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification
of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-47
recommending that the City Council certify the Final SEIR for the project, which Resolution is
incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business
hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-48
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan amendments, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available
for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-49
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Rezoning of properties to a new
Planned Development Zoning District and approval of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan for the Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and
available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-50
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement for the
Project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall
during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on
August 26, 2014 for this project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be
heard; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings
only) and Vesting Tentative Map application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Dublin does hereby make the following Site Development Review (Commercial Buildings only)
2
findings and determinations regarding The Green Mixed Use Project on approximately 27.5
acres at 5144 and 5344 Martinelli Way:
A. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 8.104 (Site Development
Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, with the General Plan, and any applicable Specific
Plans and design guidelines because: 1) The project provides an orderly, attractive
and harmonious development compatible with the site's environmental constraints
and with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. The development gives
thoughtful consideration to building location, architectural and landscape design and
theme, vehicular and pedestrian access and on-site circulation, parking and traffic
impact. It complies with development regulations and the requirements of the zoning
district, as required by Section 8.104.020.A of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2) the
project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-quality materials
and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and Community Design and Sustainability Element of the General Plan; 3) the
project will provide unique, varied, and distinct commercial opportunities, which will
serve to activate the area and provide services to existing and future residents and
workers in the vicinity; 4) the proposed project will conform to the density, design, and
allowable uses as stated in the Planned Development Zoning as required by Section
8.104.020.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 5) the project includes streetscape
enhancements to complement those already in place; and 6) the project is consistent
with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended.
B. The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Title 8, Zoning Ordinance because.
1) The architecture and landscape design for the project provides an appropriate
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhoods that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
C. The design of the project is appropriate to the City, the vicinity, surrounding
properties, and the lot(s) in which the project is proposed because. 1) The
architecture and landscape design for the project provides a unique, yet appropriate,
pedestrian scale with commercial retail uses, restaurants and the proposed layout of
buildings, landscaping and parking are well-suited to the uses; 2) the overall design of
the project is consistent with the design requirements of the Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plan; 3) the proposed development is compatible with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Mixed Use (as amended) which allows for a retail and
restaurant uses which the proposed project will achieve; and 4) the proposed project
meets the intent of the Dublin General Plan which discourages projects that do not
relate well to the surrounding developments and the proposed project is compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood that includes office, residential, and commercial
uses in the vicinity of transit and transportation opportunities.
3
D. The subject site is suitable for the type and intensity of the approved development
because. 1) the project will provide the desired mix of retail stores, eating and
drinking establishments, and associated uses that conform to the Mixed Use land use
designation of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as
amended); 2) the project provides for its own infrastructure and required services and
is designed to include sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access, with parking to
support the uses; and 3) the proposed density of the site is consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended).
E. Impacts to existing slopes and topographic features are addressed because: 1) the
project site is relatively flat; 2) the major roadway and utility infrastructure to serve the
site already exists, and 3) future approval of grading and improvement plans will
enable the site to be modified to suit the project, which will be developed for the site in
accordance with City policies and regulations.
F. Architectural considerations including the character, scale and quality of the design,
site layout, the architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, screening of
unsightly uses, lighting, building materials and colors and similar elements result in a
project that is harmonious with its surroundings and compatible with other
developments in the vicinity because. 1) the architectural style and materials will be
unique to this project, yet compatible and complementary to the contemporary
architectural style, colors, and materials being utilized on other commercial projects in
the City; 2) the project is utilizing traditional building forms with contemporary, high-
quality materials and finishes in compliance with the design guidelines of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan; 3) the size and scale of the development will be similar to other
retail commercial shopping centers in the project vicinity; and 4) unsightly uses (e.g.
waste facilities, parking lots) shall be screened with appropriate materials that are
architecturally compatible with the building design.
G. Landscape considerations, including the location, type, size, color, texture and
coverage of plant materials, and similar elements have been incorporated into the
project to ensure visual relief, adequate screening and an attractive environment for
the public because. 1) the Preliminary Landscape Plan for the project site emphasizes
the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment that will include generous
sidewalks along the main north-south drive aisle adorned with street trees and
pedestrian-scaled lighting; 2) landscaping will be provided throughout the parking
fields both at the front and rear of the project buildings; and 3) the project perimeter
and interior landscaping is consistent with other commercial development in the
vicinity and conforms to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance.
H. The site has been adequately designed to ensure the proper circulation for bicyclist,
pedestrians, and automobiles because. 1) all infrastructure including driveways,
pathways, sidewalks, and street lighting have been reviewed for conformance with
City policies, regulations, and best practices and have been designed with multi-
modal travel in mind; and 2) development of this project will conform to the major
public improvements already installed allowing patrons the safe and efficient use of
these facilities.
4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following Vesting Tentative Map findings and determinations regarding Vesting
Tentative Map 8203 for The Green Mixed Use Project:
A. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision
regulations and related ordinances.
B. The design and improvements of Vesting Tentative Map 8203 are consistent with the
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan objectives, polices, general land uses,
and programs as they relate to the subject property in that it is the subdivision of three
parcels that currently comprise the 27.5 acre project site into 96 parcels: one 5.8 acre
commercial parcel, 60 residential parcels with multiple units in each building/parcel,
and 35 street/circulation/parking area parcels.
C. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 is consistent with the General Provisions and
Development Standards for the Planned Development Zoning District for The Green
Mixed Use Project (PLPA-2013-00013), and therefore is consistent with the City of
Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Hacienda Drive,
Martinelli Way, and Arnold Road, on approximately 27.5± acres of land. The
topography of the property is generally flat. The site is physically suitable for the type
and intensity of the proposed commercial/residential mixed use development that is
proposed.
E. Vesting Tentative Map 8203 will not cause environmental damage or substantially
injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns because the
proposed project is for the subdivision of the land and not for any physical
improvements.
F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public
at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The
City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any conflicting
easements of this nature.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does
hereby recommend that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Map 8203 and Site
Development Review (Commercial Buildings only) for The Green Mixed Use Project, as shown
on plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV, stamped received August 11, 2014, subject to the
conditions included below.
5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review
and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for
monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police,
[PW] Public Works [P&CS] Parks & Community Services, [ADM] Administration/City Attorney,
[FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSR] Dublin San Ramon Services District,
[CO] Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, [Z7] Zone 7. Anything to the
contrary in these Conditions of Approval notwithstanding, if the City enters into a Development
Agreement with the project sponsor, if any term of these conditions of approval are in conflict
with the provisions of the Development Agreement, the Development Agreement shall take
precedence and shall control.
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
GENERAL CONDITIONS— SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW and VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8203
1. Approval. This Site Development Review (Commercial only) and PL Ongoing
Vesting Tentative Map 8203 approval for The Green Mixed Use
Project establishes the detailed design concepts and regulations for
the project. Development pursuant to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval generally shall
conform to the project plans submitted by Stockbridge/BHV dated
received August 11, 2014 and on file in the Community Development
Department, and other plans, text, and diagrams — including the
color and material board — relating to this Site Development Review
(Commercial only)/Vesting Tentative Map approval, unless modified
by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration. Approval of this Site Development PL One year After
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval shall be valid for one (1) Effective Date
year from the approval of the project by the Planning Commission or or as specified
as identified in the project Development Agreement. This approval in the Project
shall be null and void in the event the approved use fails to be Development
established within the prescribed time. Commencement of the use Agreement
means the establishment of use pursuant to the Permit approval or,
demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such use. If
there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may
hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a
determination may be processed concurrently with revocation
proceedings in appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a
new application must be made and processed according to the
requirements of this Ordinance.
3. Time Extension. Unless otherwise addressed in the Project PL One Year
Development Agreement, the original approving decision-maker Following
may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of Expiration
approval prior to expiration, upon the determination that all Date
Conditions of Approval remain adequate and all applicable findings
of approval will continue to be met, grant an extension of the
approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. Subsequent six
month extensions may be granted at the discretion of the
Community Development Director. All time extension requests shall
be noticed and a public hearing shall be held before the original
hearing body.
6
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
4. Compliance. The Applicant/Property Owner shall operate this use in PL On-going
compliance with the Conditions of Approval of this Site Development
Review, the approved plans and the regulations established in the
Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions specified
may be subject to enforcement action.
5. Effective Date. The approval is contingent on the City Council PL Ongoing
taking the following actions related to the project:
1. Certifying a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
and Adoption of Environmental Findings under CEQA for the
project;
2. Adopting a Resolution amending the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the project;
3. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Planned Development
Rezone with a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan
for the project; and
4. Adopting an Ordinance approving a Development Agreement for
the project.
If the above actions do not take place, the SDR/Tentative Map
approval is null and void.
This approval shall not take effect until all the City Council approvals
under items 1-4 are in full force and effect.
6. Revocation of Permit. The Site Development Review/Vesting PL On-going
Tentative Map approval shall be revocable for cause in accordance
with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to
citation.
7. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Applicant/ Various Building
Developer shall comply with applicable City of Dublin Fire Prevention Permit
Bureau, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Issuance
Department, Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control
District Zone 7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda
County Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon
Services District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all a plicable conditions required have been or will be met.
8. Required Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required by PW Building
other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Permit
Environmental Health, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Issuance
Conservation District (Zone 7), California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Caltrans, or other regional/state agencies as required by law.
Copies of the permits shall be provided to the Public Works
De artment.
9. Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Development Various Building
Agreement, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable fees in Permit
effect at the time of building permit issuance, including, but not Issuance
limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC
fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees,
Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, Fire Facilities
Impact fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
(Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that
may be adopted and applicable.
10. Indemnification. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold ADM On-going
harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees
from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an
approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board,
Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development
Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee,
or agency of the City to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or
other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty
to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the
City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or
proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
11. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer have the authority to
clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer
without going to a public hearing. The Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer also have the authority to make
minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public
hearing in order for the Applicant/Developer to fulfill needed
improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts to this project.
12. Clean-up. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for clean- PL On-going
up and disposal of project related trash to maintain a safe, clean,
and litter-free site.
13. Modifications. Modifications or changes to this Site Development PL On-going
Review/Vesting Tentative Map approval may be considered by the
Community Development Director in compliance with Chapter 8.104
of the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the Subdivision
Ordinance.
14. Archaeology. Should any prehistoric, cultural, or historic artifacts PL During
be exposed during excavation and construction operations, the Construction
Department of Community Development shall be notified and work
shall cease immediately until an archaeologist, who is certified by
the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of
Professional Archaeology (SOPA), is consulted to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures,
if deemed necessary, prior to resuming ground breaking construction
activities. Standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds
and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in
Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines. Compliance with this condition required
throe hoot construction.
15. Equipment Screening. All electrical equipment, fire risers, and/or PL Building
mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by Permit
landscaping and/or architectural features. Any roof-mounted Issuance
equipment shall be completely screened from adjacent street view and
by materials architecturally compatible with the building and to the Through
satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Building Completion/
Permit plans shall show the location of all equipment and screening On-going
for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.
8
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
16. Public Art. The Applicant/Developer intends to satisfy the City's PL, Parks Public Art Plan
requirement for Public Art through the installation of art pieces on the shall be
project site, which could potentially also include installations on the developed
Persimmon Place project site (north of Martinelli Way). The prior to
Applicant/Developer will coordinate the public art project for the issuance of
project with the City's Heritage and Cultural Arts Manager in the first
compliance with Chapter 8.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. Building
Permit and all
installations
shall be
complete prior
to occupancy
of the first
building on the
project site
17. Inclusionary Housing. The Applicant/Developer will satisfy the PL In accordance
requirements of Chapter 8.68 of the Zoning Ordinance (Inclusionary with the
Zoning Regulations) in accordance with the Project Development Project
Agreement. Development
Agreement
18. Colors. The exterior colors of the buildings shall be in compliance PL Occupancy
with the Color and Material Board approved with the Project Plans.
If paint is utilized, the Applicant shall paint small portions of the
building the approved colors for review and approval by the Director
of Community Development prior to painting the entire buildings,
whose a proval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
19. Approval of Design Details Prior to Full Installation. Details of PL Building or
the following site features and improvements shall be reviewed and Sitework
approved by the Community Development Director prior to permit Permit
issuance: Issuance
1. Amenities to be installed in the plaza/outdoor spaces next to
and between buildings (e.g. on the north side of Building 400)
that are intended to create a comfortable pedestrian
environment. Amenities could be hanging lights, additional
landscaping, or other art/design elements that serve to frame
and enclose the space.
2. Bollard/post element to be installed on the northern edge of the
commercial area along Martinelli and a portion of Hacienda.
3. Bicycle lockers and bike racks.
4. Paving pattern, colors, material for pedestrian pathways on
sidewalks, through the parking areas, and in the commercial
and residential plaza areas.
5. Enclosure details for outdoor dining/seating areas.
6. Construction and material details for trash enclosures.
20. Outdoor Furniture. Outdoor furniture (including tables and chairs PL Ongoing
for outdoor seating/eating areas) shall be suitable for all-weather
conditions and made of high-quality, durable materials. Umbrellas
shall have no more than two colors. Logos, or the name of the
restaurant establishment, may be printed on the umbrella canvas,
but logo for products sold are prohibited.
21. Outdoor Dining/Seating Areas. Outdoor dining/seating areas not PL Ongoing
shown on the Project Plans may be permitted through a Site
Development Review Waiver. Outdoor dining/seating areas shown
on the Project Plans do not need any additional review/approval
9
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
except approval of any enclosure details. Outdoor dining/seating
areas (including furniture and barriers/enclosures) shall be
maintained in good condition at all times by the owners/operators of
the associated dining establishment or the retail center property
management.
22. Master Sign Program. A Master Sign Program will be reviewed PL Installation of
and approved at the Staff-level for all project-related signage any project-
including, but not limited to, wall signs, monument signs, community related
identification signage, address signage, directional signage, parking signage
signage, speed limit signage, retail tenant signage, and other
signage deemed necessary by the City. Any wall and monument
signs shown in the Project Plans are for illustrative purposes only
and the full details of the sign sizes, materials, and construction shall
be shown in the separate sign package.
23. Construction Trailer. The Applicant/Developer shall obtain a PL Establishment
Temporary Use Permit prior to the establishment of any construction of the
trailer, storage shed, or container units on the project site. temporary use
24. Final Building and Site Improvement Plans shall be reviewed and PL Issuance of
approved by the Community Development Department staff prior to Building
the issuance of a building permit. All such plans shall insure: Permits
a. That standard non-residential security requirements as
established by the Dublin Police Department are provided.
b. That ramps, special parking spaces, signing, and other
appropriate physical features for the disabled, are provided
throughout the site for all publicly used facilities.
c. That continuous concrete curbing is provided for all parking
stalls, if necessary.
d. That exterior lighting of the building and site is not directed onto
adjacent properties and the light source is shielded from direct
offsite viewing.
e. That all mechanical equipment, including air conditioning
condensers, are architecturally screened from view, and that
electrical transformers are either underground, architecturally
screened, or screened by landscape of an adequate size.
Electrical and gas meters shall be screened to the greatest
degree possible.
f. That all vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc., are painted
to match the color of adjacent surface.
g. That all materials and colors are to be as approved by the
Dublin Community Development Department. Once constructed
or installed, all improvements are to be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans. Any changes, which affect
the exterior character, shall be resubmitted to the Dublin
Community Development Department for approval.
h. That all exterior architectural elements visible from view and not
detailed on the plans be finished in a style and in materials in
harmony with the exterior of the building. All materials shall
wrap to the inside corners and terminate at a perpendicular wall
plane.
i. That all other public agencies that require review of the project
10
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
are supplied with copies of the final building and site plans and
that compliance is obtained with at least their minimum Code
requirements.
25. Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Applicant/ Developer shall PL On-going
comply with The Green Mixed Use Project Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified by City Council
Resolution xx-xx, including all mitigation measures, action programs,
and implementation measures contained therein. The FSEIR is on
file with the Community Development Department.
26. Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. Final landscape plans, PL Landscape
including utility and tree coordination plans, layout plans, irrigation plan approval
plans, planting plans, and guarantees, shall be reviewed and and
approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development installation
Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. Plans shall be
generally consistent with the layout of the Preliminary Landscape
drawings included in the Project Plan Set prepared by Smith + Smith
Landscape Architects, received by the Planning Division on August
11, 2014, except as modified by the Conditions listed below or as
required by the Community Development Director to address specific
site constraints or conditions. At the Final Landscape Plan stage,
the tree and plant material selections shall be reviewed in detail as
the areas of the site needed for bioretention/water quality are
finalized through the development of detailed Site Improvement
Plans. Particular attention shall be paid to ensuring that plant
material shown in bioretention areas are well-suited for those soil
conditions. Alternative species shall be considered to ensure
compatibility with the contemporary look and feel of the building
architecture and overall design aesthetic.
The Final Landscape Plans shall ensure:
a. That plant material is utilized which will be capable of healthy
growth within the given range of soil and climate.
b. That proposed landscape screening is of a height and density
so that it provides a positive visual impact within three years
from the time of planting.
c. All trees that are on the perimeter of the project site and along
the main north-south drive aisle shall be 24" box minimum, with
at least 30% at 36" box or greater. Other trees located
throughout the parking lot and the project site shall be 15 gallon
and 24" box. All shrubs shall be 5 gallon minimum. All
groundcover shall be 1 gallon in size. These standards shall be
met unless a superior design concept is proposed by the
Applicant and accepted by the City.
d. That concrete curbing is to be used at the edges of all planters
and paving surfaces where applicable.
e. That all cut and fill slopes conform to the Tentative map and
conditions detailed in the Site Development Review plan set.
f. That a guarantee from the owners or contractors shall be
required guaranteeing all shrubs and ground cover, all trees,
and the irrigation system for one year.
That a permanent maintenance agreement on all landscaping will
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
be required from the owner insuring regular irrigation,
fertilization and weed abatement, if applicable.
h. The Layout Plan shall illustrate the design of all hardscape
elements including walls, fences, gates, light locations, at grade
or above grade utility boxes and vaults, walkways and
decorative pavement.
i. The Irrigation Plan shall utilize low flow, durable, irrigation
equipment and the design shall comply with Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements.
j. Construction details of raised planters, walkways, paths,
benches, walls, fences and other architectural features as
appropriate to the project.
k. All pole light locations shall be coordinated with the placement
of trees to eliminate conflicts between the trees and lights and
so that the light is not blocked by the growth of the trees.
27. Landscaping at southern property line (adjacent to 1-580). The PL Approval of
final Landscape Plan shall identify vine, groundcover, and shrub Landscape
planting adjacent to the new fence at the property line that will grow Plans
up the fence and mature quickly to provide visual screening between
the freeway and the project.
28. Landscaping at Street/Drive Aisle Intersections. Landscaping PL Ongoing
shall not obstruct the sight distance of motorists, pedestrians or
bicyclists. Except for trees, landscaping (and/or landscape
structures such as walls) at drive aisle intersections shall not be
taller than 30 inches above the curb. Landscaping shall be kept at a
minimum height and fullness giving patrol officers and the general
public surveillance capabilities of the area.
29. Plant Clearances. All trees planted shall meet the following PL Landscape
clearances: plan approval
a. 6' from the face of building walls or roof eaves. and
b. 7' from fire hydrants, storm drains, sanitary sewers and/or gas installation
lines.
c. 5' from top of wing of driveways, mailboxes, water, telephone
and/or electrical mains
d. 15' from stop signs, street or curb sign returns.
e. 15' from either side of street lights.
30. Lighting. The Applicant/Developer shall prepare a photometric plan PL, PW, Building
to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, Director of PO Permit
Community Development, the City's Consulting Landscape Architect Issuance
and Dublin Police Services. The photometric plan shall show lighting
levels which takes into consideration poles, low walls and other
obstructions. Exterior lighting shall be provided within the surface
parking lot and on the building, and shall be of a design and
placement so as not to cause glare onto adjoining properties,
businesses or to vehicular traffic. Lighting used after daylight hours
shall be adequate to provide for security needs. The parking lot
lights shall be designed to eliminate any pockets of high and low
illuminated areas. Prior to Occupancy, the Applicant shall request an
inspection of the lighting levels in the structure to determine if
lighting is sufficient. If additional lights are required to be installed to
meet the 1.0 foot-candle requirement, the Applicant shall do so prior
to Occupancy.
31. Landscaping. Applicant/Developer shall construct all landscaping PL, PW Landscape
within the site and along the project frontage to the street curb and plan approval
utter. and
12
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
installation
32. Backflow Prevention Devices. The Landscape Plan shall show the PL, PW, F Landscape
location of all backflow prevention devises. The location and plan approval
screening of the backflow prevention devices shall be reviewed and and
approved by City staff. installation
33. Root Barriers and Tree Staking. The Final Landscape Plans shall PL, PW Landscape
provide details showing root barriers and tree staking will be installed plan approval
which meet current City specifications. and
installation
34. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The Applicant/ Developer PL Landscape
shall submit written documentation to the Public Works Department plan approval
(in the form of a Landscape Documentation Package and other and
required documents) that the development conforms to the City's installation
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
35. Building Codes and Ordinances. All project construction shall B Through
conform to all building codes and ordinances in effect at the time of Completion
building ermit.
36. Retaining Walls. All retaining walls over 30 inches in height and in B Through
a walkway shall be provided with guardrails. All retaining walls over Completion
24 inches with a surcharge or 36 inches without a surcharge shall
obtain ermits and inspections from the Building & Safety Division.
37. Phased Occupancy Plan. If occupancy is requested to occur in B Occupancy of
phases, then all physical improvements within each phase pertaining any affected
to a particular building within the phase shall be required to be building
completed prior to occupancy of any such building within that phase
except for items specifically excluded in an approved Phased
Occupancy Plan, or minor handwork items, approved by the
Department of Community Development. The Phased Occupancy
Plan shall be submitted to the Directors of Community Development
and Public Works for review and approval a minimum of 45 days
prior to the request for occupancy of any building covered by said
Phased Occupancy Plan. Any phasing shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all parcels in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval. No
individual building shall be occupied until the immediately adjoining
area is finished, safe, accessible, and provided with all reasonable
expected services and amenities, and separated from remaining
additional construction activity. Subject to approval of the Director of
Community Development, the completion of landscaping may be
deferred due to inclement weather or potential harm or disruption
due to nearby construction activities of later phases with the posting
of a bond for the value of the deferred landscaping and associated
improvements.
38. Building Permits. To apply for building permits, B Issuance of
Applicant/Developer shall submit five (5) sets of construction plans Building
to the Building & Safety Division for plan check. Each set of plans Permits
shall have attached an annotated copy of these Conditions of
Approval. The notations shall clearly indicate how all Conditions of
Approval will or have been complied with. Construction plans will
not be accepted without the annotated resolutions attached to each
set of plans. Applicant/Developer will be responsible for obtaining
the approvals of all participation non-City agencies prior to the
issuance of building permits.
39. Construction Drawings. Construction plans shall be fully B Issuance of
13
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
dimensioned (including building elevations) accurately drawn building
(depicting all existing and proposed conditions on site), and permits
prepared and signed by a California licensed Architect or Engineer.
All structural calculations shall be prepared and signed by a
California licensed Architect or Engineer. The site plan, landscape
plan and details shall be consistent with each other.
40. Air Conditioning Units. Air conditioning units and ventilation ducts B Occupancy of
shall be screened from public view with materials compatible to the Unit
main building.
41. Temporary Fencing. Temporary Construction fencing shall be B Through
installed along the perimeter of all work under construction. Completion
42. Addressing B
a) Provide a site plan with the City of Dublin's address grid Prior to
overlaid on the plans (1 to 30 scale). Highlight all exterior release of
door openings on plans (front, rear, etc.). The site plan shall addresses
include a single large format page showing the entire project
and individual sheets for each building. 3 copies on full size
sheets and 5 copies reduced sheets.
b) Address signage shall be provided as per the Dublin Prior to
Commercial Security Code. permitting
c) Address will be required on all doors leading to the exterior of Prior to
the building. Addresses shall be illuminated and be able to be
seen from the street, 4 inches in height minimum. occupancy
43. Engineer Observation. The Engineer of record shall be retained to B Scheduling
provide observation services for all components of the lateral and the final
vertical design of the building, including nailing, hold-downs, straps, frame
shear, roof diaphragm and structural frame of building. A written inspection
report shall be submitted to the City Inspector prior to scheduling the
final frame inspection.
44. Foundation. Geotechnical Engineer for the soils report shall review B Permit
and approve the foundation design. A letter shall be submitted to issuance
the Building Division on the approval.
45. Electronic File: The applicant/developer shall submit all building B Issuance of
drawings and specifications for this project in an electronic format to the final
the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to the issuance of occupancy
building permits. Additionally, all revisions made to the building
plans during the project shall be incorporated into an "As Built"
electronic file and submitted prior to the issuance of the final
occupancy.
46. Construction Trailer. Due to size and nature of the development, B Ongoing
the applicant/developer, shall provide a construction trailer with all
hook ups or sufficient space within a construction trailer for use by
City Inspection personnel during the time of construction as
determined necessary by the Building Official. In the event that the
City has their own construction trailer, the applicant/developer shall
provide a site with appropriate hook ups in close proximity to the
project site to accommodate this trailer. The applicant/developer
shall cause the trailer to be moved from its current location at the
time necessary as determined by the Building Official at the
Applicant/Developer's expense.
47. Copies of Approved Plans. Applicant shall provide City with 2 B 30 days after
reduced (1/2 size) copies of the City of Dublin stamped approved permit and
14
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plan. each revision
issuance
48. Solar Zone — CA Energy Code. Show the location of the Solar B Through
Zone on the roof and site plans. Detail the orientation of the Solar Completion
Zone. This condition of approval will be waived if the project meets
the exceptions provided in the CA Energy Code.
49. Accessible Parking. The required number of accessible parking B Through
stalls, the design and location of the accessible parking stalls shall Completion
be as required by the CA Building Code. The number and locations
in the SDR are for reference only and are not approved.
50. Accessory Structures. Building permits are required for all trash B Through
enclosures and associated amenities /structures and are required to Completion
meet the accessibility and building codes.
51. 60-Foot No Build Covenant. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code B Prior to
Section 7.32.130, the owner shall file with the Building Official a Permitting
Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Yards for an
Oversized Building binding such owner, his heirs, and assignees, to
set aside a 60-foot required yard as unobstructed space having no
improvements. After execution by the owner and Building Official,
such covenant shall be recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's
Office, and shall continue in effect so long as an oversized building
remains or unless otherwise released by authority of the Building
Official.
52. CA Green Building Code. B Prior to
a) Project shall install short and long term bicycle stalls meeting Permitting
the requirements of the CA Green Building Code. The
location, style and number shall be submitted to the Building
Official for review and approval.
b) Clean Air, Vanpool and Electric Vehicle parking stalls shall be
provided. The location and number shall meet or exceed the
requirements of the CA Green Building Code.
53. The project shall comply with all Building and Fire Code Fire At permit
requirements at the time of permit issuance. issuance
54. New Fire Sprinkler System & Monitoring Requirements Fire Occupancy
In accordance with The Dublin Fire Code, fire sprinklers shall be
installed in the building. The system shall be in accordance with the
NFPA 13, the CA Fire Code and CA Building Code. This may be a
deferred submittal.
a. Sprinkler Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit detailed
mechanical drawings of all sprinkler modifications, including cut
sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department for
approval and permit prior to installation.
b. All sprinkler system components shall remain in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13 Standard, the CA Fire Code and the
CA Building Code.
c. Underground Plans. (Deferred Submittal Item). Submit
detailed shop drawings for the fire water supply system, including
cut sheets, listing sheets and calculations to the Fire Department
for approval and permit prior to installation. All underground and
fire water supply system components shall be in compliance with
the applicable N.F.P.A. 13, 24, 20, 22 Standards, the CA Fire
Code and the CA Building Code. The system shall be
hydrostatically tested and inspected prior to being covered. Prior
15
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
to the system being connected to any fire protection system, a
system flush shall be witnessed by the Fire Department.
d. Central Station Monitoring. Automatic fire extinguishing
systems installed within buildings shall have all control valves
and flow devices electrically supervised and maintained by an
approved central alarm station. Zoning and annunciation of
central station alarm signals shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval. The central station monitoring service
shall be either certificated or placarded as defined in N.F.P.A.
Standard No. 72. Assure the specific account is UL Certificated
or Placarded and not just the monitoring station.
55. Fire Alarm (detection) System Required in Assembly / Fire Occupancy
Mercantile Occupancy.
A Fire Alarm-Detection System shall be installed throughout the
building so as to provide full property protection, including
combustible concealed spaces, as required by NFPA 72. The
system shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, CA Fire,
Building, Electrical, and Mechanical Codes.
If the system is intended to serve as an evacuation system,
compliance with the horn/strobe requirements for the entire building
must also be met. All automatic fire extinguishing systems shall be
interconnected to the fire alarm system so as to activate an alarm if
activated and to monitor control valves. Delayed egress locks shall
meet requirements of C.F.C.
56. FD Building Key Box for Building Access. A Fire Department Key Fire Occupancy
Box shall be installed at the main entrance to all commercial
buildings. Note these locations on the plans. The key box should be
installed approximately 5 1/2 feet above grade.
PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL CONDITIONS
57. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map Act, the City of PW Ongoing
Dublin Subdivision, and Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin
Public Works Standards and Policies, the most current requirements
of the State Code Title 24 and the American's with Disabilities Act
with regard to accessibility, and all building and fire codes and
ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public
improvements constructed by the Developer and to be dedicated to
the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code
section 1771. Accordingly, the Developer, in constructing such
improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor
Code. Sects. 1720 and following).
58. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City PW Ongoing
of Dublin and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Dublin or its agents,
officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval
of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, appeal board, Planning
Commission, City Council, Community Development Director,
Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or
agency of the City related to the project (Tract 8203) to the extent
such actions are brought within the time period required by
Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law;
provided, however, that the Developer's duty to so defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the city's promptly
notifying the Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and
16
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or
proceedings.
59. General Conditions of Approval. Developer shall comply with the PW Prior to
following General Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Issuance of
Map 8203—The Green at Park Place. Building
Permits
60. Clarification of Conditions. In the event that there needs to be PW On-going
clarification to the Conditions of Approval, the Director of Community
Development and the City Engineer have the authority to clarify the
intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Developer without going
to a public hearing. The Director of Community Development and
the City Engineer also have the authority to make minor
modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in
order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations
resulting from impacts of this project.
61. If there are conflicts between the Vesting Tentative Map approval
and the SDR approval pertaining to mapping or public improvements
the Vesting Tentative Map shall take precedence.
62. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements. Ownership and PW Final Map and
maintenance of street right-of-ways, common area parcels and open Ongoing
space areas and improvements shall be by the City of Dublin and
The Green at Park Place Homeowner's Association as shown on the
"Ownership and Maintenance Plan" Stage II PD Exhibits, Sheet
C6.01, prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, dated June 27, 2014,
except the landscape parkway strip and sidewalk along the project
frontage at Martinelli Way shall be City Owned and HOA maintained,
and except as modified by these Conditions of Approval.
63. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A PW Improvement
Homeowners' Association(s) and/or Property Owners' Association Plans
shall be formed that covers both the residential and commercial
parcels by recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the landscape,
decorative pavement and other features within the public right of way
contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments; all open
space and common area landscaping; all stormwater treatment
measures; trail improvements; and the EVAE. Said declaration shall
set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The
CC&Rs shall contain a provision that parking for residential uses
may overflow onto the commercial parcel(s). The parking study
submitted and approved for the project assumed a certain amount of
commercial parking spaces would serve as guest parking for the
residential units. The CC&Rs shall also contain a provision that
prohibits the amendment of those provisions of the CC&Rs
requested by City without the City's approval. The CC&Rs shall
ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good
repair and on a regular basis, the landscaping & irrigation, decorative
pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs
and other related improvements. The Developer shall submit a copy
of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval relative to
these conditions of approval.
64. Phased Improvements. Right-of-way dedication and installation of PW First Final Map
public improvements may be done in phases as indicated on the
Tentative Map and Site Development Review, subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer. With each phased Final Map, the
City Engineer shall identify all improvements necessary to serve and
17
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
access the phased lots created. All rights-of-way and
improvements, including utilities and traffic signal installation and
modifications, identified by the City Engineer for construction within
the boundaries of each phase of the development shall be required
with the Final Map for that phase. In addition, the City Engineer may
require the Developer to perform off-site grading in order to conform
site grading to the adjacent grade outside of the phase proposed for
development.
65. Private street and common area subdivision improvements. PW First Phase of
Common area improvements, private streets, private alleys and all Improvement
other subdivision improvements owned or maintained by the Plans
homeowners' and/or property owners' association(s) are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval
and shall be included in the Tract Improvement Agreement for each
respective tract. Such improvements include, but are not limited to:
curb & gutter, pavement areas, sidewalks, access ramps &
driveways; enhanced street paving; parking spaces; street lights
(wired underground) and appurtenances; drainage facilities; utilities;
landscape and irrigation facilities; open space landscaping;
stormwater treatment facilities; striping and signage; and fire
hydrants.
66. Private Street Easements. Public Utility Easements (PUE), Sanitary PW First Phase of
Sewer Easements (SSE) and Water Line Easements (WLE) shall be Improvement
established over the entire private street right-of-ways within all Plans
subdivisions. The PUE, SSE and WLE dedication statements on
each Final Map are to recite that the easements are available for,
but not limited to, the installation, access and maintenance of
sanitary and storm sewers, water, electrical and communication
facilities. Project entry monument signs and walls shall not be
located within these easements.
67. Private Street Easements. The Developer shall dedicate PW Final
Emergency Vehicle Access Easements (EVAE) over the clear Acceptance of
pavement width of all private streets and alleys. Easement Project
geometry shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and
Fire Marshall.
68. Intersections: The design of the intersections shall be generally as PW Improvement
shown on the Tentative Map and the Site Development Review. The Plans
Developer shall submit details of typical intersection layout showing
the design for the ramps, sidewalks, lane lines, turn lanes, entry
walls, stop signs, landscape planters, street trees, crosswalk
locations and decorative pavement to be approved by the City
Engineer prior to the submittal of the Improvement Plans. Final
design details shall be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
69. Monuments. Final Maps shall include private street monuments to PW Improvement
be set in all private streets. Private street monuments shall be set at Plans
all intersections and as determined by the City Engineer.
70. Stormwater Source Control. "No Dumping Drains to Bay" storm PW Prior to
drain medallions per City Standard Detail CD-704 shall be placed on Issuance of
all public and private storm drain inlets. Building
Permits
71. Curb Ramps: Curb ramp layouts are not approved at this time. The PW Prior to
number, location and layout of all curb ramps shall be reviewed and Grading
approved by the City Engineer with the Improvement Plans
18
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
associated with each Final Map. All pedestrian ramps shall be
designed and constructed to provide direct access to marked or
unmarked crosswalks. Each pedestrian ramp shall be oriented such
that it is aligned and parallel to the marked or unmarked crosswalk it
is intended to serve. Pedestrian ramps serving more than one
marked or unmarked crosswalk shall not be provided, unless
specifically approved by the City Engineer.
72. Trash Enclosures. The Developer shall construct trash enclosures PW Improvement
at the site. Trash enclosures shall at a minimum meet all Plans
requirements set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section
7.98, and be approved by the trash collection company for the site
(currently AVI). The Developer shall directly coordinate with AVI for
their review and approval. The Developer shall submit written
verification to the Public Works Department that AVI has reviewed
and approved the trash enclosure size, location and design.
73. Utilities. All new utility service connections, including electrical and PW/PL Prior to
communications, shall be installed underground. Electrical Issuance of
transformers shall be installed in underground vaults within an Building
appropriate utility easement or public service easement. Permits
74. Landscape Plans. Developer shall submit design development PW Final Map
Landscape Plans with the first plan check for the street improvement Approval
plans and final map for each respective tract. The Landscape Plans
shall show details, sections and supplemental information as
necessary for design coordination of the various civil design features
and elements including utility location to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Complete Landscape Plans shall be concurrently
approved with the Tract Improvement Agreement and Final Map.
75. Street Light and Joint Trench Plans. Streetlight Plans and Joint PW In Conjunction
Trench Plans shall be submitted with the first plan check for the with the Final
street improvement plans and final map for each respective tract. Map or by
The final streetlight plan and joint trench plan shall be completed Separate
prior to Final Map approval for each respective subdivision. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
76. Geotechnical Investigation. The Developer shall submit a design PW Improvement
level geotechnical investigation report defining and delineating any Plans
seismic hazard. The report shall be prepared in accordance with
guidelines published by the State of California. The report is subject
to review and approval by a City selected peer review consultant
prior to the acceptance of each Final map. The applicant shall pay
all costs related to the required peer review. The recommendations
of those geotechnical reports shall be incorporated into the project
tans subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
77. Soils Report. The Developer shall submit a detailed soils report PW Improvement
prepared by a qualified engineer, registered with the State of Plans
California. The required report shall include recommendations
regarding pavement sections for all project streets including Arnold
Drive, Martinelli Way, and Hacienda Drive and all internal streets.
Grading operations shall be in accordance with recommendations
contained in the required soils report and grading shall be
supervised by an engineer registered in the State of California to do
such work.
78. Geotechnical Engineer Review and Approval. The Project PW[PL] On-going
Geotechnical Engineer shall be retained to review all final grading
19
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
plans and specifications. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall
approve all grading plans prior to City approval and issuance of
grading permits.
79. Grading. The disposal site and haul truck route for any off-haul dirt PW Prior to
materials shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Working
Engineer prior to the approval the improvement plans or issuance of Within the
a Grading Permit. If the Developer does not own the parcel on Public Right of
which the proposed disposal site is located, the Developer shall Way
provide the City with a Letter of Consent, signed by the current
owner, approving the placement of off-haul material on their parcel.
A grading plan may be required for the placement of the off-haul
material.
80. Underground Obstructions. Prior to demolition, excavation and PW Prior to Start
grading on any portion of the project site, all underground of Public
obstructions (i.e., debris, septic tanks, fuel tanks, barrels, chemical Improvements
waste) shall be identified and removed pursuant to Federal, State
and local regulations and subject to the review and approval by the
City. Excavations shall be properly backfilled using structural fill,
subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
81. Record Drawings. At the completion of construction, the Developer PW Prior to
shall provide the Public Works Department bond and electronic Release of
(PDF) copies of the civil, joint trench and landscape plans indicating Bonds
all changes that were made during construction.
82. Storm Drain Video. Private and public storm drain pipes shall be PW Improvement
videoed per the City of Dublin requirements. Notes specifying Plans and
procedures shall be included on the improvement plans. prior to
release of
bonds
83. Water Quality Treatment. The provided Stormwater Management PW Improvement
Plan included with the Tentative Map is approved in concept only. Plans
The final Stormwater Management Plan is subject to City Engineer
approval prior to approval of the Tract Improvement Plans. Approval
is subject to the developer providing the necessary plans, details,
and calculations that demonstrate the plan complies with the
standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).
84. Non-City Agencies. The Applicant/Developer will be responsible for PW Improvement
submittals and reviews to obtain the approvals of all participating Plans
non-City agencies. The Alameda County Fire Department and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the
Improvement Plans.
85. Hydrology and Hydraulic Calculations. Hydrology and Hydraulic PW Improvement
Calculations shall be provided for the design of the site storm drain Plans
system.
86. Requirements and Standard Conditions. The Various Prior to
Applicant/Developer shall comply with applicable Alameda County Issuance of
Fire, Dublin Public Works Department, Dublin Building Department, Building
Dublin Police Services, Alameda County Flood Control District Zone Permits
7, Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, Alameda County
Public and Environmental Health, Dublin San Ramon Services
District and the California Department of Health Services
requirements and standard conditions. Prior to issuance of building
permits or the installation of any improvements related to this
20
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
project, the Developer shall supply written statements from each
such agency or department to the Planning Department, indicating
that all applicable conditions required have been or will be met.
87. Utility Siting Plan. The Applicant/Developer shall provide a final PW, PL Prior to
Utility Siting Plan showing that transformers and service boxes are Issuance of
placed outside of public view where possible and/or screened to the Grading
satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Permits
Engineer. Applicant/Developer shall place all utility infrastructures
underground including electric, telecommunications, cable TV, and
gas in accordance with standards enforced by the appropriate utility
agency. Utility plans showing the location of all proposed utilities
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to
installation.
88. Emergency Vehicle Access Easement Dedications. PW, F In Conjunction
Applicant/Developer shall dedicate all needed emergency vehicle with the Final
access easements from each adjacent public street to all fire access Map or by
roads surrounding the site and buildings as defined by Alameda Separate
County Fire Department and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Instrument
Prior to
Occupancy
AGREEMENTS AND BONDS
89. Tract Improvement Agreement. The Developer shall enter into a PW Final Map
Tract Improvement Agreement with the City of Dublin for all public
improvements including any required offsite storm drainage or
roadway improvements that are needed to serve the Tract that have
not been bonded with another Tract Improvement Agreement.
90. Long Term Encroachment Agreement. The Developer shall enter PW Final Map
into an "Agreement for Long Term Encroachments" with the City of
Dublin to allow the HOA and/or POA to maintain the landscape and
decorative features within the public right-of-way including frontage
and median landscaping, decorative pavement and special features
(i.e. walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on the Site
Development Review exhibits. The Agreement shall identify the
ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities.
The Homeowner's and/or Property Owners' Association will be
responsible for maintaining the surface of all decorative pavements
including restoration required as a result of utility repairs.
91. Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement. The PW Final Map
Developer shall enter into a "Stormwater Treatment Measures
Maintenance Agreement" (O&M Agreement) with the City of Dublin
that guarantees the perpetual maintenance obligation for all storm
water treatment measures installed as part of the project. Said
agreement is required pursuant to Provision C.3.h of RWQCB Order
R2-2009-0074 for the issuance of the Alameda Countywide NPDES
municipal storm water permit. Said permit requires the City to
provide verification and assurance that all treatment devices will be
properly operated and maintained. This condition shall not apply if
the water quality treatment measures are maintained by a GHAD or
other pu blic entity.
92. Security. The Developer shall provide Faithful Performance security PW Final Map
(100%), and Labor & Materials security (100%), to guarantee the
tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, prior to
execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the
Final Ma .
21
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
93. Maintenance Security. Upon acceptance of the improvements, the PW Acceptance of
Faithful Performance security may be replaced with a maintenance Improvements
bond that is 25% of the value of the Faithful Performance security.
The maintenance bond is returned to the Developer within one year
of City acceptance of the improvements.
FEES
94. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of PW Zone 7 and
building permit issuance including, but not limited to, Planning fees, Parkland In-
Building fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Lieu Fees due
Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees, prior to Final
Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda County Fire Services Map;
fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Other Fees
Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) required with
Drainage and Water Connection fees and any other fees except and issuance of
as otherwise noted in the Development Agreement. building
permits
95. Parkland In-Lieu Fees. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or PW Prior to Filing
pay in-lieu fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Final Map
Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution revising these
amounts and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines
adopted by Resolution 195-99.
PERMITS
96. Encroachment Permit. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment PW Start of Work
Permit from the Public Works Department for all construction activity
within the public right-of-way of any street where the City has
accepted the improvements. The encroachment permit may require
surety for slurry seal and restriping. At the discretion of the City
Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an
Improvement Agreement may not be required.
97. Grading/Sitework Permit. Developer shall obtain a PW Start of Work
Grading/Sitework Permit from the Public Works Department for all
grading and private site improvements that serves more than one lot
or residential condominium unit.
98. Other Agency Permits. Developer shall obtain all permits required PW Issuance of
by other agencies including, but not limited to Alameda County Flood Permit/Start of
Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7, California Work
Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans and provide copies of the
permits to the Public Works Department.
SUBMITTALS
99. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply with the PW Improvement
requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Works Department Plan or Final
Improvement Plan Submittal Requirements", and the "City of Dublin Map
Improvement Plan Review Check List".
100. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and reviews to PW Improvement
obtain the approvals of all participating non-City agencies. The Plans or Final
Alameda County Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Map
Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans.
101. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which includes street PW Grading/Impro
pavement sections and grading recommendations. vement Plans
or Final Map
102. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department a PDF file and PW Acceptance of
digital vectorized file of the "master" CAD files for the project when
22
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the Final Map has been approved. Digital raster copies are not Improvements
acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in AutoCAD 14 or and Release
higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the of Bonds
precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be
colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall
use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83
California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot.
FINAL MAP
103. All Final Maps shall be substantially in accordance with the Tentative PW Approval of
Maps approved with this application, unless otherwise modified by Final Map
these conditions. Multiple final maps may be filed in phases,
provided that each phase is consistent with the tentative map, that
phasing progresses in an orderly and logical manner and adequate
infrastructure is installed with each phase to serve that phase as a
stand-alone project that is not dependent upon future phasing for
infrastructure.
104. All rights-of-way and easement dedications required by the Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map shall be shown on the Final Map. Final Ma
105. Any phasing of the final mapping or improvements of a Vesting PW Approval of
Tentative Map is subject to the approval and conditions of the City Final Map
Engineer.
106. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private street PW Approval of
pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The approved street Final Map
names shall be indicated on the Final Map.
107. All Final Maps shall include street monuments to be set in all public PW Monuments to
streets. be shown on
Final Map and
installed prior
to acceptance
of
Improvements
EASEMENTS
108. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all applicable public PW Approval of
agencies of existing easements and right of ways that will no longer Improvement
be used. Plans and
Final Map
109. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry PW Approval of
from the adjacent property owners for any improvements on their Improvement
property. The easements and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing Plans and
and copies furnished to the City Engineer. Final Map
GRADING
110. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of
recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the approved Grading Plans
Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review, and the City design or Issuance of
standards & ordinances. In case of conflict between the soil Grading
engineer's recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer Permit.
shall determine which shall apply.
111. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with the Grading PW Approval of
Plan approval. The plan shall include detailed design, location, and Grading Plans
maintenance criteria of all erosion and sedimentation control or Issuance of
measures. Grading
Permit.
23
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
112. Tiebacks or structural fabric for retaining walls shall not cross PW Approval of
property lines, or shall be located a minimum of 2' below the finished Grading Plans
grade of the upper lot. or Issuance of
Grading
Permit.
113. Bank slopes along public streets shall be no steeper than 3:1. The PW Approval of
toe of any slope along public streets shall be one foot back of Grading Plans
walkway. The top of any slope along public streets shall be three or Issuance of
feet back of walkway. Minor exception may be made in the above Grading
slope design criteria to meet unforeseen design constraints submit to Permits, and
the approval of the City Engineer. Ongoing
IMPROVEMENTS
114. The public improvements shall be constructed generally as shown PW Approval of
on the Vesting Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review. Grading/Impro
However, the approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site vement Plans
Development Review is not an approval of the specific design of the or issuance of
drainage, sanitary sewer, water, and street improvements. grading
permits.
115. All public improvements shall conform to the City of Dublin Standard PW Approval of
Plans and design requirements and as approved by the City Grading/Impro
Engineer. vement Plans
or Start of
Construction.
116. Martinelli Way. The Developer shall dedicate two feet (2') of right- PW Final Map
of-way and install street improvements along the project's Martinelli
Way frontage. Required street improvements include, but are not
limited to: removal of existing asphalt concrete sidewalk;
construction of new ten foot (10') wide Class I pedestrian/bike trail
and four foot (4') wide (inclusive of curb) landscape strip; driveways;
curb ramps; street trees; irrigation and relocation of utilities.
Developer shall also install root barriers adjacent to both sidewalk
and back of curb within landscape strip.
117. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
construct frontage improvements along Arnold Road, north of the
project driveway, such that the curb-to-median curb width is twenty
six feet (26') and include a twelve foot (12') travel lane, six foot (6)
bike lane and eight foot (8') parking lane. The Developer shall also
install a five foot (5) (inclusive of curb width) monolithic sidewalk.
Required roadway improvements on Arnold Road north of the
Project driveway shall include, but are not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, curb ramps, drainage structures and relocation of utilities.
118. Arnold Road — North of Project Driveway. Approximately 12-18 PW Final Map
feet of excess right-of-way behind the new back-of-walk shall be
vacated with the first Final Map for the project in accordance with
Subdivision Map Act Sections 66434(g) and 66436. The new right-
of-way line shall coincide with the new back-of-walk.
119. Arnold Road — South of Project Driveway. The Developer shall PW Final Map
dedicate right-of-way and construct frontage improvements along
Arnold Road, south of the project driveway, such that the curb-to-
median curb width is twenty six feet (26') and include a twelve foot
(12') travel lane, six foot (6) bike lane and eight foot (8') parking
lane. The Developer shall also install a five foot (5) (inclusive of
24
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
curb width monolithic sidewalk.
120. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall dedicate and secure PW First Final Map
the dedication of right-of-way and install complete roadway and requiring
utility improvements for the construction of a new cul-de-sac at the frontage
current southern terminus of Arnold Road near the southwest corner improvement
of the project. The Developer shall facilitate and secure the on Arnold
dedication of right-of-way required on the adjacent Alameda County Road
Surplus Property Authority (ACSPA) parcel necessary for the
construction of the new cul-de-sac. Dedication of the required right-
of-way by ACSPA shall be recorded prior to approval of the First
Final Map that requires frontage improvements on Arnold Road.
121. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. Required roadway and utility PW First Final Map
improvements for the Arnold Road cul-de-sac shall include, but are requiring
not limited to: removal/reconstruction of existing median nose, frontage
removal of existing traffic islands, installation of pavement, curb, improvement
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, driveways, drainage structures, utilities, on Arnold
street lights, and fire hydrants. The minimum curb-to-curb diameter Road
for the cul-de-sac shall be ninety six feet (96'). Final design of cul-
de-sac and connection to Alta Mirano Avenue shall be subject to
review and approval of the Fire Marshall and the City Engineer.
122. Arnold Road cul-de-sac. The Developer shall use diligent PW First Final Map
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain, at its cost, any right-of- requiring
way, access rights and other consents and approvals from affected frontage
property owners necessary to complete improvements for the Arnold improvement
Road cul-de-sac; provided, however, that if the Developer is unable, on Arnold
through the use of diligent commercially reasonable efforts, to obtain Road
the necessary right-of-way, access rights and other consents and
approvals for any portion of the Arnold Road cul-de-sac (an
"Unacquired Portion") by the date that is six months before the date
construction is scheduled to Commence, the Developer shall so
notify the City in writing, and either:
a. City shall procure the necessary right-of-way, access rights and
other consents and approvals for the applicable Unacquired
Portion and shall seek to gain possession of the Unacquired
Portion within a timeframe that will not delay Developer's
schedule. Developer's obligation to Commence Construction
with respect to the applicable Unacquired Portion shall be tolled
until City has procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals; or
b. If City has not procured the necessary right-of-way, access rights
and other consents and approvals within two years after the date
Construction Commenced on the Arnold Road cul-de-sac,
Developer shall be released from its obligations under these
Conditions of Approval and any of the other approvals with
respect to the construction of the cul-de-sac. The Developer
shall then be responsible for construction of the alternate
`hammerhead' turnaround as shown on the Vesting Tentative
Map.
123. Public streets shall be at a minimum 1% slope with minimum gutter PW Approval of
flow of 0.7% around bumpouts. Private streets and alleys shall be at Grading/Impro
minimum 0.5% slope. vement Plans
or Start of
25
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
Construction.
Ongoing
124. Curb Returns on arterial and collector streets shall be 40-foot radius, PW Approval of
all internal public streets curb returns shall be minimum 30-foot Grading/Impro
radius (36-foot with bump outs) and private streets/alleys shall be a vement Plans
minimum 20-foot radius, or as approved by the City Engineer. Curb or Start of
ramp locations and design shall conform to the most current Title 24 Construction.
and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and as approved Ongoing
by the City Traffic Engineer.
125. All landscaping and any architectural structure shall be no more than PW Improvement
30 inches tall inside the Visibility zone established by a Safe Plans
Stopping Sight Distance at the project entrances on Martinelli Way
and Arnold Road. The Safe Stopping Sight Distance shall be based
on the 35 MPH on Martinelli Way and 30 MPH on Arnold Road. The
sight distances shall be prepared by a Traffic Engineer and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
126. Decorative pavers, stamped concrete or other similar non-standard PW Approval of
pavement sections shall not be installed on any public right of way, Grading/Impro
unless the design and location is reviewed and approved by the City vement Plans
Engineer. In general, decorative pavement (pavers, or similar non- or Start of
standard pavement sections) shall not be installed over traffic Construction.
detector loops, inside crosswalks or within thirty feet (30') of any Ongoing
crosswalk or STOP bar. Decorative pavements shall not interfere
with the placement of traffic control devices, including pavement
markings. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
127. Median Landscaping. Median landscaping at the main entrance to PW Improvement
the site from Martinelli Way shall not exceed maximum height for Plans and
sight distance requirements. ongoing
128. Utility Design. All utility design including but not limited to storm PW Geotechnical
drain and storm water treatment measures shall be located as not to Report and
compromise the integrity of the building foundations for Improvement
excavation/maintenance of utility is needed. Geotechnical Engineer Plans
Report shall address the clearance required.
129. Bike Lanes on Arnold Drive. Bike Lanes shall be provided along PW Improvement
the frontage of the project on Arnold Road. Bike lane design shall be Plans
reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
130. TDM Plan. Developer shall prepare a Transportation Demand PW Prior to
Management Plan (TDM) Plan as per the SEIR mitigations. The Approval of
TDM plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Final Map
Engineer prior to implementation and shall include additional TDM
measures for residential development beyond those that are noted in
the SEIR.
131. Class 1 Trail. Developer shall construct a Class 1 Trail at least 10 PW Improvement
feet wide with adequate clearances from the intersection of Martinelli Plans
Way and Hacienda Drive, south along the Hacienda Drive frontage
and west along the southern property frontage, to the southern
terminus of Arnold Drive to connect to the trail along Altamirano
Way, and as approved by the City Engineer.
132. Traffic Signal and Median Modifications. Developer shall modify PW Improvement
traffic signal at the intersection of Martinelli Way and project Plans
driveway, and at Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive. The medians
26
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
along Martinelli Way and Hacienda Drive shall be modified to
accommodate safe turning movements and overall traffic circulation.
The changes to the intersection at Martineli Way and Hacienda Drive
will trigger significant changes to the signal operations along
Hacienda Drive. Developer shall pay for any needed operational
changes including traffic consultant costs for updating signal
coordination plans, and field implementation of operational changes
at the intersection. Developer shall submit any traffic signal
operational changes to the City Traffic Engineer for review and
approval prior to field implementation. Developer shall install a traffic
monitoring camera and associated equipment at the intersection of
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way.
133. Trash Capture. The project Stormwater Management Plan shall PW Improvement
incorporate full trash capture measures such as screens, filters or Plans
CDS/Vortex units to address the requirements of Provision C.10 of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal
Regional Permit (MRP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
134. Stormwater Treatment. Developer shall incorporate source control PW Improvement
measures, stormwater treatment measures, and trash capture Plans
measures into the site design as required pursuant to Provision C.3
and C.10 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit,
Order No. R2-2009-0074, CAS612008.
135. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and pavement marking as PW Occupancy of
required by the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
136. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed and installed PW Occupancy of
per approval of the City Engineer. The maximum voltage drop for Units or
streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of
Improvements
137. The Developer shall construct bus stops and shelters at the PW Occupancy of
locations designated and approved by the LAVTA and the City Units or
Engineer. The Developer shall pay the cost of procuring and Acceptance of
installing these improvements. Bus stops shall have a bus pull-out Improvements
with an entry taper of 40 feet, exit taper of 80 feet and the bus
landing area 80 feet long and 12 feet deep. All bus stops shall have
the electricity connection for any future upgrades to electronic signs
as per LAVTA guidelines and/or standards.
138. Developer shall construct all potable and recycled water and sanitary PW Occupancy of
sewer facilities required to serve the project in accordance with Units or
DSRSD master plans, standards, specifications and requirements. Acceptance of
Improvements
139. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Alameda County Fire PW Occupancy of
Department. A raised reflector blue traffic marker shall be installed in Units or
the street opposite each hydrant. Acceptance of
Improvements
140. The Developer shall furnish and install street name signs for the PW Occupancy of
project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Units or
Acceptance of
Improvements
141. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and communication PW Occupancy of
improvements within the fronting streets and as necessary to serve Units or
27
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
the project and the future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Acceptance of
Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. Improvements
142. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, shall be PW Occupancy of
underground in accordance with the City policies and ordinances. Units or
All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility Acceptance of
easements and sized to meet utility company standards. Improvements
143. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless specifically approved PW Occupancy of
otherwise by the City Engineer, shall be underground and placed in Units or
landscape areas and screened from public view. Prior to Joint Acceptance of
Trench Plan approval, landscape drawings shall be submitted to the Improvements
City showing the location of all utility vaults, boxes and structures
and adjacent landscape features and plantings. The Joint Trench
Plans shall be signed by the City Engineer prior to construction of
the joint trench improvements.
CONSTRUCTION
144. Construction Hours. Standard construction and grading hours PW On-going as
shall be limited to weekdays (Monday through Friday) and non-City needed
holidays between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. The
Developer may request reasonable modifications to such determined
days and hours, taking into account the seasons, impacts on
neighboring properties, and other appropriate factors, by submitting
a request form to the City Engineer. For work on Saturdays, said
request shall be submitted no later than 5:00 p.m. the prior
Wednesday. Overtime inspection rates will apply for all after-hours,
Saturday, and/or holiday work.
145. Construction Trash/Debris. Measures shall be taken to contain all PW, B, PL Prior to
construction related trash, debris, and materials on-site until disposal Construction
off-site can be arranged. The Applicant/Developer shall keep the
adjoining public streets and properties free and clean of project dirt,
mud, and materials during the construction period. The Developer
shall be responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the
City of Dublin.
146. Construction Fencing. The use of any temporary construction PL, PW, B Prior to
fencing shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Issuance of
Engineer and the Building Official. Building
Permits
147. Erosion Control during Construction. Applicant/Developer shall PW Ongoing as
include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan with the Grading and needed
Improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Said plan shall be designed, implemented, and continually
maintained pursuant to the City's NPDES permit between October
1s` and April 15`" or beyond these dates if dictated by rainy weather,
or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. The Developer will be
responsible for maintaining erosion and sediment control measures
for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision
improvements.
148. If archaeological materials are encountered during construction, PW Ongoing as
construction within 100 feet of these materials shall be halted until a needed
professional Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of
California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional
Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the
significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures.
149.1 Developer shall prepare a construction noise management plan that PW Start of
28
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
identifies measures to be taken to minimize construction noise on Construction,
surrounding developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Implementatio
construction operation, use of mufflers on construction equipment, n, and
speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise Ongoing as
monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be provided needed
prior to project construction.
150. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic interface with PW Start of
public traffic on any existing public street. Construction traffic and Construction,
parking may be subject to specific requirements by the City Implementatio
Engineer. n, and
Ongoing as
needed
151. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any rodent, PW Ongoing
mosquito, or other pest problem due to construction activities.
152. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or other dust- PW Ongoing
palliative measures to control dust as conditions warrant or as
directed by the City Engineer.
153. The Developer shall provide the Public Works Department with a PW Issuance of
letter from a registered civil engineer or surveyor stating that the Building
building pads have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Permits or
shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of Acceptance of
banks and retaining walls are at the locations shown on the Improvements
approved Grading Plans.
STORM WATER QUALITY NPDES
154. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall provide the City PW Start of any
evidence that a Notice of Intent (NOI) has been sent to the California construction
State Water Resources Control Board per the requirements of the activities
NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be
kept at the construction site.
155. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall identify PW SWPPP to be
the Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the project prepared prior
construction activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion control to approval of
measures in accordance with the regulations outlined in the most improvement
current version of the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control plans,
Handbook or State Construction Best Management Practices implementatio
Handbook. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all n prior to start
contractors implement all storm water pollution prevention measures of construction
in the SWPPP. and ongoing
as needed
156. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete improvement DSRSD Issuance of
plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that conform to the requirements Building
of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD Permits
"Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and
Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable
DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies.
157. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity to DSRSD Issuance of
accommodate future flow demands in addition to each development Improvement
project's demand. Layout and sizing of mains shall be in Plans
conformance with DSRSD utility master planning.
158. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD's DSRSD Issuance of
existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of sewage is discouraged Improvement
29
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
and may only be allowed under extreme circumstances following a Plans
case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will
require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary
design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications.
The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth
20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a
separate agreement with the applicant for any project that requires a
pumping station.
159. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for Tracts or DSRSD Issuance of
Commercial Developments shall be designed to be looped or Improvement
interconnected to avoid dead end sections in accordance with Plans
requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound
engineering practice.
160. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines to be located in DSRSD Issuance of
public streets rather than in off-street locations to the fullest extent Improvement
possible. If unavoidable, then public sewer or water easements Plans
must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or
water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access
for future maintenance and/or replacement.
161. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a site DSRSD Issuance of
development permit, the locations and widths of all proposed Improvement
easement dedications for water and sewer lines shall be submitted Plans
to and approved by DSRSD.
162. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be by separate DSRSD Issuance of
instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD or by offer of dedication on Improvement
the Final Map. Plans
163. Prior to approval by the City for Recordation, the Final Map shall be DSRSD Issuance of
submitted to and approved by DSRSD for easement locations, Improvement
widths, and restrictions. Plans
164. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all utility connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Permits
checking fees, inspection fees, connection fees, and fees associated
with a wastewater discharge permit shall be paid to DSRSD in
accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD
Code.
165. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be permitted unless the DSRSD Issuance of
proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A Improvement
construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in the Plans
condition immediately above have been satisfied.
166. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or Construction DSRSD Issuance of
Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, whichever comes Building
first, all improvement plans for DSRSD facilities shall be signed by Permits
the District Engineer. Each drawing of improvement plans shall
contain a signature block for the District Engineer indicating approval
of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by
the District Engineer, the applicant shall pay all required DSRSD
fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for
the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a one-year
maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance
policy in the amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The
applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement
drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer.
30
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
167. The applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of Directors, DSRSD Issuance of
commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and Building
indemnify and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines Permits
resulting from the construction and completion of the project.
168. Improvement plans shall include recycled water improvements as DSRSD Issuance of
required by DSRSD. Services for landscape irrigation shall connect Improvement
to recycled water mains. Applicant must obtain a copy of the DSRSD Plans
Recycled Water Use Guidelines and conform to the requirements
therein.
169. Above ground backflow prevention devices/double detector check DSRSD Issuance of
valves shall be installed on fire protection systems connected to the Improvement
DSRSD water main. The applicant shall collaborate with the Fire Plans
Department and with DSRSD to size and configure its fire system.
The applicant shall minimize the number of backflow prevention
devices/double detector check valves installed on its fire protection
system. The applicant shall minimize the visual impact of the
backflow prevention devices/double detector check valves through
strategic placement and landscaping.
170. A utility plan showing routing of improvements and demolition of DSRSD Issuance of
existing utilities (if any). Zone 7 Turnout and DSRSD Fluoride Improvement
St ora e Facilit shall be shown on final plans. Plans
171. DSRSD has major water infrastructure in the area in the form of DSRSD Ongoing
pipelines going from DSRSD Turnout 4 to customers. Applicant
shall ensure that the DSRSD infrastructure is not damaged or
compromised during the construction of this project.
172. DSRSD maintains radio communications links between Turnout 4 DSRSD Occupancy of
and Pump Station 10A and Reservoir 10A for transmission of first tenant
SCADA information. Applicant plans will be reviewed to ensure the space
communications links will remain unbroken Applicant, DSRSD and
City of Dublin will coordinate to be sure this DSRSD communications
link will remain operative and reliable after construction.
173. Development plans will not be approved until landscape plans are DSRSD Issuance of
submitted and approved. Sitework
Permit
174. Grading for construction shall be done with recycled water. DSRSD Ongoing
175. Temporary potable irrigation meters in areas with recycled water DSRSD Ongoing
service shall only be allowed for cross-connection and coverage
testing for a maximum of 14 calendar days.
176. Where the narrow width of a proposed alley or cul-de-sac would DSRSD Issuance of
make the standard spacing between water mains and sewer mains Sitework
unworkable, the developer must request an exemption from Permit
DSRSD's standard spacing requirements between mains. Such an
exemption may be granted, but only if:
1. The spacing between the sewer and water main is the maximum
width possible using the proposed width of the alley.
2. In no case is the spacing between the sewer and water main less
than five (5) feet measured edge to edge.
3. The vertical separation between the water line and the sewer line
is at least one (1) foot with the sewer line deeper than the water line.
4. The material for the water line is Class 200 pressure rated PVC
water pipe (DR 14 per AWWA C900-97 & C905-97) and the material
for the sewer main is PVC pipe using bell and spigot joints using
rubber g askets meeting the requirements of ASTM D3034, SDR26,
31
CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN REQ'D
AGENCY Prior to:
cell classification 12454-B or 12454-C.
Developer should be aware that the exemption is not guaranteed to
be granted, but may be granted if all special provisions for the
narrow alleyway are followed.
177. The project is located within the District Recycled Water Use Zone DSRSD Issuance of
(Ord. 301), which calls for installation of recycled water irrigation Sitework
systems to allow for the future use of recycled water for approved Permit
landscape irrigation demands. Recycled water will be available as
described in the DSRSD Water Master Plan Update, December
2005. Unless specifically exempted by the District Engineer,
compliance with Ordinance 301, as may be amended or
superseded, is required. Applicant must submit landscape irrigation
plans to DSRSD. All irrigation facilities shall be in compliance with
District's "Recycled Water Use Guidelines" and Dept. of Health
Services requirements for recycled water irrigation design.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Bhuthimethee, O'Keefe, Do
NOES: Goel, Kohli
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Assistant Community Development Director
G:IPk20131PLPA-2013-00013 The Green GPA-SPA-PDIPC 08.26.141Att 4-SDR Reso.docx
32
RESOLUTION NO. xx-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM UNDER CEQA FOR
THE GREEN MIXED USE PROJECT (PLPA-2013-00013)
(APNs 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-00, 986-0033-006-00)
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place LLC, has submitted a
Planning Application to construct six residential neighborhoods with 372 units in multiple
buildings and a complementary commercial district with approximately 37,000 square feet of
future retail and restaurant buildings with associated outdoor seating areas on a 27.5-acre site.
The proposal includes the approval of General Plan Amendments, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendments, Rezoning properties to a new Planned Development Zoning District and approval
of a related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review (Commercial
Buildings only), Vesting Tentative Map, Development Agreement, and certification of a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, among other related actions. These planning and
implementing actions are collectively known as "The Green Mixed Use Project" or the "Project";
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site is in Eastern Dublin for which the City adopted the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to provide a comprehensive planning
framework for future development of the area. In connection with this approval, the City certified
a program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH: 91103064, Resolution 51-93,
and Addendum dated August 22, 1994, hereinafter "Eastern Dublin EIR"), which is available for
review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. The program EIR was
integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative
impacts, broad policy alternatives, and area-wide mitigation measures for developing Eastern
Dublin, including the Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental
impacts and related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation
findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by
reference), which mitigation measures and monitoring program continue to apply to
development in Eastern Dublin, including the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified potentially significant environmental
impacts that could not be avoided by mitigation and for which the City adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA (Resolution 53-93); and
1
WHEREAS, in 2004, the City approved amendments to the General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change the land use designation on the Project site from
Campus Office to General Commercial, which would have allowed an IKEA furniture retail store
and other commercial uses on the site. Approved square footages included up to 317,000 for
the proposed IKEA facility and up to 137,000 square feet of retail space on a separate parcel
just east of the IKEA facility but on the same site. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR (SCH
#2003092076) to assess the impacts of that land use change ("IKEA SEIR"). The IKEA SEIR
evaluated the following impacts: Air Quality, Biological Resources, and Transportation and
Circulation. On March 16, 2004, the City certified the IKEA SEIR and adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: excessive levels of ozone precursors above
regulatory thresholds on a project and cumulative basis, excessive levels of carbon monoxide
emissions above regulatory thresholds, and increase of project traffic on local freeways on a
cumulative basis (City Council Resolution No. 44-04); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study, dated July 11, 2013 ("Initial Study"), for
the Project, consistent with Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163, in order to determine if a supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and
IKEA SEIR was required under CEQA standards. The Initial Study determined that a
supplement to the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR would be prepared to address certain
environmental impacts of the Project. The Initial Study also concluded that many of the
environmental impacts of the Project were within the scope of the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA
SEIR and that the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR adequately described and
analyzed these impacts for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation, dated July 12, 2013, to public
agencies and interested parties for consultation on the scope of the EIR. The City also
conducted a public scoping meeting on July 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, dated
May 2014, ("Draft SEIR") for the proposed Project that reflected the City's independent
judgment and analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The Draft SEIR is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR was circulated for public review from May 7, 2014 to June 23,
2014 (45 days); and
WHEREAS, the City received comment letters from State, regional, and local agencies
and interested parties during the public review period. In accordance with the requirements of
CEQA, the City prepared written responses to all the comments received during the public
comment period. The City prepared a Final SEIR (that includes the Responses to Comments),
dated August 2014, for the proposed Project, which included an annotated copy of each
comment letter identifying specific comments, responses to each specific comment, and
clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the Draft SEIR. The responses
to comments provide the City's good faith, reasoned analysis of the environmental issues raised
by the comments. The Draft and Final SEIR are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and
are incorporated herein by reference. The complete The Green Mixed Use Project SEIR
incorporates the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR together and is referred to hereafter as "the
SEIR"; and
2
WHEREAS, the City carefully reviewed the comments and written responses and
determined that the Final SEIR, including the clarifications and minor corrections to the Draft
SEIR, does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft SEIR
under the standards in CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. After reviewing the
Staff Report, the SEIR, including comments and responses, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the IKEA
SEIR, and other information in the record as a whole, the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution 14-47 recommending that the City Council certify the SEIR, adopt certain findings,
and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which resolution is incorporated
herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated November 4, 2014 and incorporated herein by
reference, described and analyzed the Project and the SEIR for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Staff Report, the SEIR, including comments
and responses, at a noticed public hearing on November 4, 2014, at which time all interested
parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR, including comments and responses, reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the Project;
and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified several potentially significant impacts that will be reduced
to a less than significant level with specified mitigation measures; therefore, approval of the
Project will require adoption of findings on impacts and mitigations as set forth in attached
Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project will require adoption of findings concerning mitigations
as set forth in attached Exhibit B, findings concerning alternatives as set forth in attached Exhibit
C, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit D; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as required by CEQA, is
attached as Exhibit E; and
WHEREAS, the EIR and all the documents relating to the Project are available for review
in the City Planning Division at the Dublin City Hall, file PLPA-2013-00013, during normal
business hours. The location and custodian of the SEIR and other documents that constitute
the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Dublin Community Development
Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, file PLPA-2013-00013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Dublin City Council certifies the
following:
A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
3
B. The SEIR, consisting of the Draft SEIR and Final SEIR attached as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines.
C. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained
in the SEIR, including the written comments received during the Draft SEIR review period
and the oral and written comments received at the public hearing, prior to acting on the
Project.
D. The SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis on the potential
environmental impacts of the Project. The SEIR provides information to the decision-
makers and the public on the environmental consequences of the Project.
E. The SEIR adequately describes the Project, its significant environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council adopts the mitigation
measures and impact and mitigation findings set forth in Exhibit B, the findings concerning
feasibility of alternatives and additional mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit C, the Statement
of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit D, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program set forth in Exhibit E. Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E are incorporated herein by reference,
all in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. .
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 4t" day of November 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4
The Green
Mixed-Use Project
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2013072032
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
May 2014
Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
1.2 Summary of Project ................................................................................................................1
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues .........................................................................................2
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................3
1.5 Summary of Alternatives ........................................................................................................3
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy .................................................................................................3
2.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................................28
2.1 EIR Requirement ..................................................................................................................28
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR ..................................................................................................28
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR ........................................................................................29
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR .............................................................................30
2.5 DSEIR Review Process.........................................................................................................31
2.6 Topics Not Addressed in this DSEIR ...................................................................................31
2.7 Future Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................31
3.0 Project Description .............................................................................................................32
3.1 Project Location ....................................................................................................................32
3.2 Project Area Features ............................................................................................................32
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals ......................................................................................................32
3.4 Project Applications ..............................................................................................................36
3.5 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................39
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental EIR ......................................................................40
4.0 Environmental Analysis .....................................................................................................46
4.1 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................47
4.2 Traffic and Transportation ....................................................................................................51
4.3 Community Services and Facilities ....................................................................................110
4.4 Public Utilities – Sewer and Water .....................................................................................115
4.5 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................132
4.6 Noise ...................................................................................................................................150
4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................162
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................197
5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...............................................................................202
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR ..............................................................202
5.2 Alternatives Identified in the IKEA SEIR ..........................................................................203
5.3 Alternatives Identified in this SEIR ....................................................................................203
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................208
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion .............................................................................................210
6.1 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................210
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ........................................................211
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted ............................................................................213
7.1 Persons and Organizations ..................................................................................................213
7.2 References ...........................................................................................................................214
8.0 Appendices .........................................................................................................................215
8.1 Initial Study
8.2 Notice of Preparation
8.3 Comments received on the Notice of Preparation
8.4 City Council Resolution No. 51-93 (1993 Eastern Dublin EIR) and
Resolution 53-93 (Statement of Overriding Considerations)
8.5 City Council Resolution No. 44-04 (IKEA SEIR)
8.6 Supplemental Traffic Documentation
8.7 Supplemental Biological Analysis
8.8 Supplemental Acoustic Analysis
8.9 Supplemental Air Quality/GHG Analysis and Supplemental Exhibits
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................4
Table 4.2-1 Wheels Bus Routes ....................................................................................................54
Table 4.2-2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition .................................................61
Table 4.2-3 Arterial Level of Service Definition ..........................................................................62
Table 4.2-4 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................................66
Table 4.2-5 Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................68
Table 4.2-6 Intersection Level of Services - Existing Conditions ................................................72
Table 4.2-7 Intersection Level of Services – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions ......................75
Table 4.2-8 Intersection Level of Services – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions .......................80
Table 4.2-9 Queuing Analysis – Existing Conditions ..................................................................84
Table 4.2-10 Queuing Analysis – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions .......................................86
Table 4.2-11 Queuing Analysis – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions ........................................88
Table 4.2-12 MTS Arterial & Freeway segments short term Cumulative (year 2020) ................90
Table 4.2-13 MTS Arterial & Freeway Segments-Long Term Cumulative (Year 2035) ............91
Table 4.2-14 Arterial LOS-Existing Conditions ...........................................................................93
Table 4.2-15 Arterial LOS-Short-Term Cumulative Conditions ..................................................97
Table 4.2-16 Arterial LOS-Long-Term Cumulative Conditions ................................................102
Table 4.3-1 Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity .......................................................110
Table 4.3-2 DUSD Student Generation Rates ............................................................................113
Table 4.4-1 The Green Project-Estimated Daily Wastewater Demand (gallons/day) ................117
Table 4.4-2 DSRSD Water Supply .............................................................................................121
Table 4.4-3 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Normal Year (AF) .......................123
Table 4.4-4 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Single Dry Year (AF) ..................124
Table 4.4-5 DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Multiple Dry Years (AF) ............125
Table 4.4-6 The Green Project-Estimated Daily Water Demand (gallons/day) .........................130
Table 4.5-1 Summary of Biological Communities on the Project Site .......................................133
Table 4.5-2 Plant and Animal Species Observed on the Site .....................................................146
Table 4.6-1 City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) ......................152
Table 4.7-1 Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards .........................164
Table 4.7-2 Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station ...................164
Table 4.7-3 Air Quality Significance Thresholds .......................................................................168
Table 4.7-4 Construction Period Emissions................................................................................170
Table 4.7-5 Daily Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (pounds/day) ...........171
Table 4.7-6 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Operation of the Project (tons/year) ...........172
Table 4.7-7 Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures ................176
Table 4.7-8 Cumulative Risk at Proposed Site ...........................................................................182
Table 4.7-9 Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons .....................................................190
Table 5.1-1 Alternative 2 vs. Project Trip Generation ................................................................205
Table 5.1-2 Alternative 3 vs. Project Trip Generation ................................................................207
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 3.1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................42
Exhibit 3.2 Project Context in Dublin ...........................................................................................43
Exhibit 3.3 Preliminary Site Plan..................................................................................................44
Exhibit 3.4 Preliminary Roadway Network ..................................................................................45
Exhibit 4.2-2 Trip Distribution .....................................................................................................69
Exhibit 4.5-1 Biological Communities .......................................................................................148
Exhibit 4.5-2 Congdon’s Tarplant Locations ..............................................................................149
Exhibit 4.6-1 Noise Measurement Locations ..............................................................................160
Exhibit 4.6-2 2030 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................161
Exhibit 4.7-1 Project Site, Roadway Links, and Project Residential Receptor Locations .........192
Exhibit 4.7-2 Increased Cancer Risks (per million) From I-580 Traffic (Unmitigated) ............193
Exhibit 4.7-3 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) From I-580 Traffic (Unmitigated) .........194
Exhibit 4.7-4 Increased Cancer Risks (per million) From Cumulative Sources (Unmitigated) .195
Exhibit 4.7-5 Annual PM2.5 Concentrations (μg/m3) From Cumulative Sources (Unmitigated) ..196
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 1
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of a summary of the proposed project, a list of supplemental environmental
issues to be resolved and a summary identification of each supplemental environmental impact
and associated supplemental mitigation measure.
A discussion of the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
implementing Guidelines to the proposed project is outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains a
detailed discussion of the proposed project. Chapter 4 includes a thorough analysis of
supplemental project impacts and supplemental mitigation measures. Chapter 5 provides a range
of alternatives to the proposed project as required by CEQA and a discussion of each alternative.
Chapter 6 contains all other CEQA-mandated sections. Finally, Chapter 7 includes the names of
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) preparers, individuals and
agencies contacted in the preparation of this document and references. Appendices are included
as Chapter 8.
1.2 Summary of Project
The project analyzed in this document is the “The Green,” a proposed mixed-use retail and
residential complex located in the eastern portion of Dublin.
The project site contains 27.5 acres of land is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area of the
City of Dublin. More specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Martinelli Way
between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive to the west. Interstate 580 forms the
southern boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the project
area are 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, and 986-0033-006-00.
The project site is currently owned by the Project Applicant, BHV/Stockbridge Emerald Place
Land Company, LLC. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has identified the project area for future
General Commercial (G-C) development.
The site is currently predominantly vacant and contains no major stands of trees, rock
outcroppings or other significant natural features. One small vacant prefabricated office building
exists in the approximate center of the site that is slated for removal.
Properties to the west of the project site are vacant, but are planned for urban uses in the Dublin
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Hacienda Crossings commercial center
exists east of the project site. Properties north of the site are vacant, however, applications were
recently approved by the City of Dublin to amend the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and related actions to allow construction of a commercial center anchored by a grocery
store.
The proposed project would involve constructing a mixed-use commercial and residential
development project on the site that would include up to 40,000 gross square feet of retail and
restaurant floor area and up to 400 dwellings units.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 2
The project would include grading of the site, installation of utilities and services, placement of
landscaping and placement of identification signs. Project objectives include:
a) Initiation of a zoning-level framework to guide future development projects within the
Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
b) Creation a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding
properties and land uses;
c) Construction of a mix of land uses that result in a fiscally positive impact on the City’s
financial and service systems;
d) Ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project providing for the creation of new
jobs, commercial services for the community, opportunities for public gathering spaces
and open space areas;
e) Offering a diverse residential unit offering that will appeal to a diverse population
demographic;
f) Creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with
direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the
north, Hacienda Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to
the west;
g) Developing a project that responds to a range of transportation choices, including
walking, bicycling and public transit (BART and bus service), to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions;
h) Providing for a broad range of open spaces integrated into the walkable urban village
atmosphere, including children’s play area, green space park and vibrant open plaza
surrounded by shops, cafés and restaurants;
i) Implementing high-quality urban architectural design that enhances and embraces the
prominence and visibility of the project location;
j) Providing for a prominent physical and visual connection to the grocery-anchored
shopping center to the north of the project site and continuity in architectural and site
design between the two properties; and
k) Creation of a gateway to the project site through prominent building siting and placement
of distinctive features at both Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way and at the main project
driveway off Martinelli Way.
Requested land use entitlements to implement the proposed project include amendments to the
Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and
Stage 2 Development Plan, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Site Development
Review (SDR) Permit. The Applicant will also have the opportunity to request a Development
Agreement.
1.3 Summary of Environmental Issues
Based on the environmental analysis contained in the Initial Study for this project (see Appendix
8.1) and responses (see DSEIR Appendices 8.2 and 8.3) to the Notice of Preparation issued by
the City of Dublin, the following topics are addressed in the DSEIR: population and housing,
transportation and traffic, community services and facilities, sewer and water, biological
resources, noise, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis hazards and hazardous materials.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 3
1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Each potentially significant impact and associated mitigation measure (if required) identified in
this DSEIR is summarized on Table 1.1. The summary chart has been organized to correspond
with the more detailed impact and mitigation measure discussion found in Chapter 4. Table 1.1 is
arranged in three columns. The first column identifies supplemental environmental impacts by
topic area and level of impact (i.e. significant supplemental impact, less-than-significant
supplemental impact, or no supplemental impact) prior to implementation of any supplemental
mitigation measures. The second column includes supplemental mitigation measures. The third
and final column identifies the level of significance after implementation of supplemental
mitigation measures.
This chapter is a summary of the DSEIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15123. For a
complete description of the environmental setting, supplemental impacts associated with this
proposed project and mitigation measures, refer to Chapter 4 of this DSEIR.
1.5 Summary of Alternatives
The DSEIR analyzes three alternatives, as follows.
• Alternative 1. "No Project.” This Alternative, mandated by CEQA, assumes that the
project site remains in its current undeveloped condition and no development would
occur.
• Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the site would be developed under the existing
Planned Development (PD) zoning that would facilitate 270,000 square feet of retail
commercial floor space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space.
• Alternative 3. This Alternative would allow Campus Office development under the
existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use category. Up to 218,000
square feet of office space could be constructed in a low- to mid-rise, campus-like setting
at a Floor Area Ratio of 0.35.
These alternatives are detailed and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the DSEIR.
1.6 Areas of Known Controversy
The project consists of constructing a mixed use complex containing up to 40,000 gross square
feet of retail, restaurant and similar type land uses as well as 400 attached dwellings at various
densities and product types. The development would also include on-site parking, landscaping,
signs and internal driveways. There are no known areas of controversy with respect to
environmental issues, although it was expected that the proposal to locate residential uses
immediately adjacent to Interstate I-580 could create challenges related to air quality impacts and
noise impacts on future residents.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 4
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
1
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
s
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
d
e
t
a
i
l
i
n
th
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
i
s
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
tal
Dr
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
Ta
b
l
e
1
.
1
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
TR
-
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
A
r
n
o
l
d
R
o
a
d
(
#
8
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
wi
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
A
d
d
a
7
5
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
w
i
t
h
a
1
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
b)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
r
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
-
ri
g
h
t
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
;
c)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
5
0
or
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
a
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
w
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
fo
u
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
on
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
b)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
3
0
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
w
i
t
h
a
3
6
0
-
fo
o
t
l
o
n
g
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
c)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
s
i
g
n
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
i
n
g
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
U
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
a
n
d
d)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
S
M
-
T
R
-
2
.
Th
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
E
I
R
M
M
3
.
3
/
2
.
0
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
no
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
5
0
o
r
m
o
r
e
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
S
M
)
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
A
s
a
n
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
m
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 5
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
(T
D
M
)
p
l
a
n
t
o
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
b
o
t
h
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
ke
y
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
l
a
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
fi
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
T
D
M
p
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
a)
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
t
o
ov
e
r
s
e
e
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
b)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
h
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
5
1
1
,
R
i
d
e
m
a
t
c
h
,
Gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
R
i
d
e
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
Wh
e
e
l
s
/
L
A
V
T
A
,
A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
(
A
C
E
)
,
B
A
R
T
,
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
t
o
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
n
y
c
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
c)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ab
o
v
e
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
b
l
a
s
t
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
d)
C
o
-
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
u
b
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
i
r
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
“
T
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
”
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
Du
b
l
i
n
a
r
e
a
.
I
n
v
i
t
e
W
h
ee
l
s
,
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
,
a
n
d
a
t
le
a
s
t
t
w
o
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
e)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
c
a
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
r
a
nu
m
b
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
f)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
o
r
ca
g
e
s
)
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
g)
J
o
i
n
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
S
h
a
r
e
a
s
a
“
B
i
z
P
r
i
m
e
”
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 6
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
a
y
f
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
h)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
B
A
R
T
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
B
A
R
T
t
i
c
k
e
t
s
a
t
n
o
c
o
s
t
o
r
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
r
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
i)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
T
a
x
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
13
2
(
F
)
o
f
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
t
a
x
c
o
d
e
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
c
a
n
of
f
e
r
i
t
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
p
t
o
$
2
4
5
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
fo
r
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
co
s
t
s
.
O
r
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
m
a
y
o
f
f
e
r
$
2
0
p
e
r
mo
n
t
h
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
F
u
l
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
is
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
:
ht
t
p
:
/
/
r
i
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
.
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
s
/
t
a
x
_
b
e
n
e
f
i
ts
.
a
s
p
x
j)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
s
an
d
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
TR
-
3
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
(#
1
0
)
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
3
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
an
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
a
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
w
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
fo
u
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
o
n
e
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
on
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
b
)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
on
d
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
th
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
w
i
t
h
a
3
6
0
-
f
o
o
t
l
o
n
g
t
a
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
;
an
d
c
)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
4
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
a
d
d
5
0
or
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
4
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
A
d
d
a
n
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
tw
o
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
t
h
r
e
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
tw
o
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
;
a
n
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 7
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
b)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
in
g
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
l
a
n
e
o
n
th
e
e
a
s
t
l
e
g
t
h
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
d
s
f
r
o
m
T
a
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Ro
a
d
t
o
B
r
a
n
n
i
g
a
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
TR
-
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
(
#
5
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
Te
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
wo
u
l
d
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
L
O
S
F
a
n
d
a
d
d
50
o
r
m
o
r
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
T
R
-
5
.
A
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
bl
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
Pl
a
n
(
D
C
S
P
)
-
D
E
I
R
.
I
n
t
h
e
D
S
C
P
-
D
E
I
R
,
t
h
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
t
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
r
a
t
e
o
f
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
/
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
a
t
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
i
s
a
g
r
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
gr
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
ne
e
d
f
o
r
a
t
-
g
r
a
d
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
h
e
tr
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
m
o
r
e
g
r
e
e
n
ti
m
e
t
o
b
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
o
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
pr
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
e
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
c
l
e
a
r
e
d
,
n
o
r
ha
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
o
r
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
b
e
e
n
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
r
e
g
a
r
d
s
t
o
t
h
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
i
s
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
v
e
l
y
p
u
r
s
u
i
n
g
th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
T
r
a
i
l
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
al
s
o
p
l
a
n
s
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
g
r
a
d
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
at
t
h
i
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
i
t
s
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
T
I
F
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
to
s
e
c
u
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
A
r
n
o
l
d
R
o
a
d
(
#
8
)
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
w
i
t
h
th
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
i
p
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
un
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
6
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
:
a)
M
o
d
i
f
y
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
gn
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
pr
o
h
i
b
i
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
i
n
g
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
U
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
a
n
d
b)
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
p
l
i
t
t
i
m
e
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
7
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
SM
-
T
R
-
7
.
O
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 8
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
m
o
r
e
un
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
ph
a
s
e
t
i
m
e
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
9
5
th
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
qu
e
u
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
t
o
3
7
1
fe
e
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
w
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
tu
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
.
TR
-
8
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
(
#
1
0
)
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
ex
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
fe
e
t
o
r
m
o
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
q
u
e
u
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
wh
e
n
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
SM
-
T
R
-
8
.
T
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
ti
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
y
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
g
r
e
e
n
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
t
o
4
2
0
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
2
7
0
fe
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
le
n
g
t
h
s
w
o
u
l
d
s
t
i
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
AM
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
ca
u
s
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
t
u
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
by
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
2
5
f
e
e
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
9
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
q
u
e
u
e
a
t
t
h
e
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
c
e
e
d
tu
r
n
p
o
c
k
e
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
b
y
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
r
mo
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
9
.
T
h
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
i
s
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
e
e
n
t
i
m
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
q
u
e
u
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
b
y
12
f
e
e
t
t
o
8
4
5
f
e
e
t
a
n
d
t
o
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
.
A
l
s
o
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
m
a
k
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
f
a
i
r
sh
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
a
i
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
L
e
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
1
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
H
i
b
e
r
n
i
a
D
r
i
v
e
t
o
de
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
ad
d
3
0
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
t
h
i
s
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 9
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
t
o
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
c
a
u
se
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
ra
t
i
o
o
f
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
t
o
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
to
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
7
1
.
TR
-
1
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
e
M
a
r
c
u
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
Pa
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
3
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
3
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
a
n
d
D
o
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
o
a
d
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
7
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
ul
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
i
n
th
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
4
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
th
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
4
5
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
LO
S
E
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
n
d
b
y
0
.
0
7
1
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
wo
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
i
n
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
Sh
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
o
a
d
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
t
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
f
r
o
m
L
O
S
D
t
o
L
O
S
E
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
n
l
y
a
d
d
4
t
r
i
p
s
t
o
th
i
s
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 10
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
TR
-
1
6
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
D
u
b
l
i
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
se
g
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
r
o
n
H
o
r
s
e
P
a
r
k
w
a
y
a
n
d
C
a
m
p
P
a
r
k
s
wh
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
E
a
n
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
C
a
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
a
n
d
S
c
a
r
l
e
t
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
i
n
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
3
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
7
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
v
o
l
u
m
e
t
o
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
r
a
t
i
o
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
r
th
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
se
g
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
I
-
5
8
0
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
H
a
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
b
y
0
.
0
2
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
wh
e
r
e
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
a
t
L
O
S
F
u
n
d
e
r
L
o
n
g
-
T
e
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
.
No
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
TR
-
1
8
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
pl
a
n
s
,
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
8
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
y
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
1
9
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
p
l
a
n
s
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
1
9
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
C
i
t
y
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
,
p
l
a
n
s
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
0
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
al
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
St
r
e
e
t
P
o
l
i
c
y
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
TR
-
2
1
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
it
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
or
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
I
T
E
o
r
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
1
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
n
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
de
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
o
l
i
c
y
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
A
l
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
C
i
t
y
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 11
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
TR
-
2
2
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
im
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
,
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
a
n
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
SM
-
T
R
-
2
2
.
B
e
f
o
r
e
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
fo
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
wi
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
,
L
A
V
T
A
,
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
se
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Fi
r
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
B
u
r
e
a
u
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
en
s
u
r
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
.
At
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
a)
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
tr
i
p
s
,
t
i
m
e
,
a
n
d
d
a
y
o
f
st
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
b)
T
i
m
e
o
f
d
a
y
o
f
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
a
n
d
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
o
f
tr
u
c
k
s
c)
L
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
z
e
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
s
;
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
a
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
on
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
u
c
k
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
d)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
u
c
k
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
e)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
f
e
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
,
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
e
.g
.
,
s
t
e
e
l
p
l
a
t
e
s
,
mi
n
i
m
u
m
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
o
p
e
n
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
p
i
c
k
u
p
a
n
d
d
r
o
p
o
f
f
a
r
e
a
s
)
f)
S
a
f
e
a
n
d
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
u
t
e
s
f
o
r
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
g)
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
n
d
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
r
o
u
t
e
s
h)
M
a
n
u
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
w
h
e
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i)
P
r
o
p
e
r
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
o
s
t
e
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
co
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
j)
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Pa
r
k
-
1
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
B
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
5
a
c
r
e
s
of
l
o
c
a
l
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
n
o
pu
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
s
p
a
c
e
.
SM
-
P
a
r
k
-
1
.
As
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
ma
p
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
2
-
ac
r
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Sq
u
a
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
.
T
h
e
s
i
z
e
,
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 12
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Sq
u
a
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
D
u
b
l
i
n
p
a
r
k
s
an
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
l
p
a
r
k
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
y
p
a
y
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
BI
O
-
1
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
th
e
U
.
S
.
a
n
d
/
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
1
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
th
e
s
i
t
e
:
a)
A
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
fo
r
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
of
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
.
b)
I
f
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
si
t
e
a
n
d
i
f
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
wa
t
e
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
s
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
n
o
n
e
t
l
o
s
s
o
f
we
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
r
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
s
.
I
n
s
u
c
h
an
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
a
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
en
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
pr
o
j
e
c
t
g
r
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
de
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
(
o
r
si
m
i
l
a
r
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
)
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
an
e
n
d
o
w
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
I
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
40
4
o
f
t
h
e
C
l
e
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
Ac
t
,
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
r
p
s
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
W
Q
C
B
)
.
I
f
t
h
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
r
e
n
o
n
-
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
4
,
t
h
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
an
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
B
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 13
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
BI
O
-
2
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
. Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
C
o
n
g
d
o
n
’
s
t
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
2
.
F
o
c
u
s
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
pl
a
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
’
s
2
0
0
9
P
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
f
o
r
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
S
t
a
t
u
s
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
P
l
a
n
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
h
o
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
st
a
t
u
s
f
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
T
w
o
or
t
h
r
e
e
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
co
v
e
r
t
h
e
b
l
o
o
m
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
p
l
a
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
4
-
1
.
I
f
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
s
t
a
n
d
s
o
f
a
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
st
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
an
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
,
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
l
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
cr
e
d
i
t
s
i
n
a
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ba
n
k
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
o
se
l
l
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
ed
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
o
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
of
i
n
-
l
i
e
u
f
e
e
s
t
o
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
g
e
n
c
y
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
e
.
g
.
.
a
l
o
c
a
l
l
a
n
d
t
r
u
s
t
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
d
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
U
S
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
I
n
t
h
e
ca
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
fe
d
e
r
a
l
-
o
r
s
t
a
t
e
-
l
i
s
t
e
d
,
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
s
h
a
l
l
ap
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
Co
u
n
t
y
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
i
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
.
O
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
ac
r
e
a
g
e
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
1
:
1
(
a
c
q
u
i
re
d
:
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
)
.
F
o
r
o
f
f
-
si
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
)
pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 14
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
BI
O
-
3
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
im
p
a
c
t
t
h
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
ow
l
b
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
3
.
P
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
o
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
co
n
f
o
r
m
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
St
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
o
n
B
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
O
w
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(C
D
F
W
2
0
1
2
b
)
.
T
h
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
de
p
i
c
t
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
a
s
b
e
i
n
g
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Z
o
n
e
2
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
s
1
1
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
of
t
h
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
’
s
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
’
s
un
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
)
.
Bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
n
e
s
t
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
’
s
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
1
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
r
u
d
e
r
a
l
/
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
n
o
n
-
na
t
i
v
e
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
M
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
B
i
r
d
T
r
e
a
t
y
A
c
t
a
n
d
th
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
a)
N
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
n
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
sh
a
l
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
t
a
k
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
f
o
r
bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
.
I
f
n
o
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
a
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
w
i
l
l
be
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
gr
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
a
t
bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
s
t
i
l
l
a
b
s
e
n
t
.
I
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
o
r
su
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
fo
r
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
in
i
t
i
a
l
t
a
k
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
,
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
r
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
e
d
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
r
v
e
y
wi
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
)
.
A
l
l
su
r
v
e
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
b)
I
f
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 15
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
M
o
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
i
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
ow
l
s
o
n
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
bu
r
r
o
w
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
.
W
h
e
r
e
av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
i
s
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
a
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
pl
a
n
(
i
.
e
.
,
a
p
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
a
n
d
ex
t
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y
an
d
h
a
b
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
o
w
l
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
di
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
o
w
l
s
t
o
m
o
v
e
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
to
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
v
e
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
ow
l
s
.
T
h
e
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ma
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
ha
b
i
t
a
t
a
t
a
n
e
a
r
b
y
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
Fi
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
BI
O
-
4
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
4
.
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
gr
o
u
n
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
n
o
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
f
r
o
m
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
t
o
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
3
1
.
I
f
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
t
h
e
s
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
fr
o
m
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
t
o
A
u
g
u
s
t
3
1
,
t
h
e
n
a
p
r
e
-
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
n
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
4
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
A
n
y
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
s
f
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 16
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
5
0
-
f
o
o
t
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
bu
f
f
e
r
.
T
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
i
z
e
m
a
y
v
a
r
y
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
bi
r
d
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
fa
c
t
o
r
s
.
BI
O
-
5
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pr
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
b
a
t
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
in
h
a
b
i
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
SM
-
B
I
O
-
5
.
T
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
e
m
i
s
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
o
r
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
.
P
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
o
f
t
h
e
ma
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
b
a
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
n
o
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
i
t
s
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
.
I
f
b
a
t
s
a
r
e
fo
u
n
d
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
U
S
Fi
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
&
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
a
n
d
E
A
C
C
S
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
NO
I
S
E
-
1
No
i
s
e
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
co
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
6
0
dB
A
C
N
E
L
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g
4
5
d
B
A
CN
E
L
.
SM
-
N
O
I
S
E
-
1
.
R
e
d
u
c
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
no
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
i
n
n
o
i
s
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
to
m
e
e
t
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
T
o
m
e
e
t
C
i
t
y
n
o
i
s
e
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
:
Lo
c
a
t
e
n
o
i
s
e
-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
aw
a
y
f
r
o
m
I
n
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
8
0
.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
u
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
th
a
t
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
(
6
0
d
B
A
CN
E
L
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
)
.
A
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
f
f
o
r
c
e
d
-
a
i
r
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
ve
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
u
n
i
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
s
o
t
h
a
t
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
c
a
n
b
e
ke
p
t
c
l
o
s
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
’
s
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
t
o
co
n
t
r
o
l
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
a
n
d
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
no
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Fo
r
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
r
o
w
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
5
8
0
,
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
s
e
a
l
e
d
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
n
o
ba
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
o
n
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
Fo
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
,
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
4
5
d
B
A
CN
E
L
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
.
S
o
u
n
d
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 17
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
wi
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
d
o
o
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
a
t
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
le
v
e
l
s
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
bu
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
s
o
u
n
d
r
a
t
e
d
w
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
a
u
l
k
i
n
g
,
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
e
t
c
.
L
a
r
g
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
do
o
r
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
I
-
58
0
w
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
lo
c
a
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
I
-
5
8
0
.
Th
e
f
i
n
a
l
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
i
n
s
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
in
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
4
5
dB
A
C
N
E
L
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
h
o
u
r
l
y
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
n
o
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
t
o
4
5
d
B
A
L
e
q
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
.
Re
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
Th
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
al
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
th
a
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
ex
c
e
e
d
6
0
d
B
A
C
N
E
L
a
t
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
4
5
dB
A
C
N
E
L
i
n
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
.
I
f
ne
e
d
e
d
,
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
al
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
co
n
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
n
o
i
s
e
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
th
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
A
t
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
th
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 18
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
h
o
u
r
s
o
f
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
o
u
t
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
tr
u
c
k
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
A
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
ac
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
ex
t
e
r
i
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
T
h
e
t
r
u
c
k
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
p
l
a
n
an
d
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
f
o
r
an
y
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Ai
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
SM
-
A
Q
-
1
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
d
u
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
l
l
re
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
o
s
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
E
D
S
P
E
I
R
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
3
.
1
1
/
1
.
0
:
a)
A
l
l
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
st
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
s
o
i
l
p
i
l
e
s
,
g
r
a
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
un
p
a
v
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
t
w
o
ti
m
e
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
.
b)
A
l
l
h
a
u
l
t
r
u
c
k
s
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
s
o
i
l
,
s
a
n
d
,
o
r
ot
h
e
r
l
o
o
s
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
v
e
r
e
d
.
c)
A
l
l
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
m
u
d
o
r
d
i
r
t
t
r
a
c
k
-
o
u
t
o
n
t
o
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
o
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
we
t
p
o
w
e
r
v
a
c
u
u
m
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
e
r
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
on
c
e
p
e
r
d
a
y
.
T
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
d
r
y
p
o
w
e
r
sw
e
e
p
i
n
g
i
s
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
d)
A
l
l
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
e
d
s
o
n
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
r
o
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
1
5
m
p
h
.
e)
A
l
l
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
,
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
,
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
t
o
be
p
a
v
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
a
s
s
o
o
n
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
a
i
d
a
s
s
o
o
n
as
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
a
f
t
e
r
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
u
n
l
e
s
s
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
o
r
so
i
l
b
i
n
d
e
r
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
.
f)
I
d
l
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
e
i
t
h
e
r
b
y
sh
u
t
t
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
f
w
h
e
n
n
o
t
i
n
u
s
e
o
r
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 19
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
i
d
l
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
t
o
5
mi
n
u
t
e
s
(
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
ai
r
b
o
r
n
e
t
o
x
i
c
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
T
i
t
l
e
1
3
,
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
4
8
5
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
d
e
o
f
Re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
[
C
C
R
]
)
.
C
l
e
a
r
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
t
a
l
l
ac
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
g)
A
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
t
u
n
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
’
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
l
l
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
h
e
c
k
e
d
b
y
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
me
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
pr
o
p
e
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
h)
P
o
s
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
i
g
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
t
th
e
L
e
a
d
A
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
d
u
s
t
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
.
Th
i
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
co
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
.
T
h
e
A
i
r
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
to
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
AQ
-
1
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
n
e
t
i
n
cr
e
a
s
e
o
f
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
w
h
i
c
h
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
n
-
a
t
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
d
u
e
t
o
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
N
O
X.
SM
-
A
Q
-
2
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
fu
t
u
r
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
D
e
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
D
M
)
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
a)
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
t
o
ov
e
r
s
e
e
t
h
e
T
D
M
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
b)
P
r
o
m
o
t
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
h
a
r
d
c
o
p
y
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
5
1
1
,
R
i
d
e
m
a
t
c
h
,
Gu
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
d
R
i
d
e
H
o
m
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
Wh
e
e
l
s
/
L
A
V
T
A
,
A
l
t
a
m
o
n
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 20
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
(
A
C
E
)
,
B
A
R
T
,
s
h
u
t
t
l
e
s
t
o
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
tr
a
n
s
i
t
,
a
n
d
a
n
y
c
a
r
s
h
a
r
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
.
c)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
ab
o
v
e
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
b
l
a
s
t
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
d)
C
o
-
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
u
b
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
i
r
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
w
i
t
h
“
T
h
e
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
”
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
Du
b
l
i
n
a
r
e
a
.
I
n
v
i
t
e
W
h
ee
l
s
,
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
,
a
n
d
a
t
le
a
s
t
t
w
o
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
t
o
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
c
o
m
m
u
t
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
e)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
2
0
pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
c
a
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
o
r
a
nu
m
b
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
r
a
c
k
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
f)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
(
l
o
c
k
e
r
s
o
r
ca
g
e
s
)
f
o
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
g)
J
o
i
n
C
i
t
y
C
a
r
S
h
a
r
e
a
s
a
“
B
i
z
P
r
i
m
e
”
me
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
a
y
f
o
r
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
o
f
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
h)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
B
A
R
T
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
wo
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
B
A
R
T
t
i
c
k
e
t
s
a
t
n
o
c
o
s
t
o
r
su
b
s
i
d
i
z
e
d
r
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
.
i)
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
r
T
a
x
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
o
r
e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
.
U
n
d
e
r
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
13
2
(
F
)
o
f
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
t
a
x
c
o
d
e
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
c
a
n
of
f
e
r
i
t
s
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
u
p
t
o
$
2
4
5
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
f
o
r
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
,
v
a
n
p
o
o
l
o
r
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
Or
,
a
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
m
a
y
o
f
f
e
r
$
2
0
p
e
r
m
o
n
t
h
fo
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
s
.
F
u
l
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
:
ht
t
p
:
/
/
r
i
d
e
s
h
a
r
e
.
5
1
1
.
o
r
g
/
r
e
w
a
r
d
s
/
t
a
x
_
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
.a
s
p
x
j)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
a
r
p
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 21
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
va
n
p
o
o
l
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
k)
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
,
t
o
t
h
e
ma
x
i
m
u
m
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
ev
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
R
O
G
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
AQ
-
2
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Se
e
S
M
-
A
Q
-
2
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
AQ
-
3
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
l
e
a
n
A
i
r
P
l
a
n
.
Se
e
S
M
-
A
Q
-
2
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
AQ
-
4
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
e
x
p
o
s
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
t
o
e
x
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
a
n
d
P
M
2.
5
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
a
b
o
v
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
-
b
a
s
e
d
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
SM
-
A
Q
-
3
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
t
o
x
i
c
ai
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
(
T
A
C
)
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
:
a.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
n
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
f
u
l
l
y
e
a
r
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
1/
1
/
2
0
1
7
.
b.
D
e
s
i
g
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
fr
o
m
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
T
A
C
a
n
d
f
i
n
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
ma
t
t
e
r
(
P
M
2
.
5
)
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
l
a
y
o
u
t
sh
a
l
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
a
i
r
i
n
t
a
k
e
s
a
s
f
a
r
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
I
-
5
8
0
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
l
a
n
e
s
.
A
n
y
mo
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
a
n
d
th
e
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
c.
T
o
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
d
e
g
r
e
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
p
l
a
n
t
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
wi
t
h
I
-
5
8
0
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
r
e
e
s
a
n
d
s
h
r
u
b
s
t
h
a
t
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
e
n
s
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
v
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
.
d.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
t
ro
o
f
t
o
p
l
e
v
e
l
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
1
0
i
n
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
P
M
2.
5
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
b
o
v
e
0
.
3
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
cu
b
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
(
µ
g
/
m
3)
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 22
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
4.
7
-
4
.
T
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
e
b
e
l
o
w
.
.
T
o
en
s
u
r
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
,
a
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
sh
a
l
l
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
n
i
m
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
,
Ci
t
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
2
0
0
8
)
:
At
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
o
f
fr
e
s
h
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
a
i
r
;
At
l
e
a
s
t
f
o
u
r
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
re
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
;
a
n
d
At
l
e
a
s
t
0
.
2
5
a
i
r
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
(
s
)
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
i
n
un
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
e.
T
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
M
E
R
V
-
r
a
t
e
d
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
to
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
as
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
1)
M
E
R
V
1
3
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
1
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
gr
e
a
t
e
r
b
u
t
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
o
r
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
2
2
p
e
r
on
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
fo
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
.
2)
M
E
R
V
1
6
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
2
2
p
e
r
o
n
e
mi
l
l
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
5
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
as
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
f
o
r
un
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
.
3)
M
E
R
V
1
6
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
a
l
e
d
,
in
o
p
e
r
a
b
l
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
n
o
b
a
l
c
o
n
i
e
s
on
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
a
c
i
n
g
I
-
5
8
0
fr
e
e
w
a
y
(
M
E
R
V
1
6
P
l
u
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 23
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pa
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
wh
e
r
e
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
o
r
eq
u
a
l
t
o
5
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
62
.
5
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
4
.
7
-
4
f
o
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
c
a
n
c
e
r
ri
s
k
s
.
4)
I
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
i
s
6
2
.
5
p
e
r
on
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
sh
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
b
u
i
l
t
u
n
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
a
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
i
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
re
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
to
b
e
l
o
w
1
0
p
e
r
o
n
e
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
f.
A
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
a
n
on
g
o
i
n
g
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
’
he
a
t
i
n
g
,
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
a
i
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
(H
V
A
C
)
a
i
r
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
ai
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
h
a
l
l
l
a
s
t
a
s
l
o
n
g
a
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
c
a
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
o
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
PM
2.
5
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
.
S
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
st
u
d
i
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
n
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
ex
p
e
r
t
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
e
on
g
o
i
n
g
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
e
d
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
a
s
f
u
t
u
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
g.
E
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
l
e
a
s
e
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
)
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
f
o
r
a
i
r
f
l
o
w
l
e
a
k
s
;
(
2
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
as
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
w
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
a
r
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
;
a
n
d
(
3
)
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
f
e
e
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 24
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
w
n
i
n
g
o
r
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
a
u
n
i
t
(
s
)
in
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
f
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
,
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
of
t
h
e
f
i
l
t
e
r
s
,
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
h.
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
cl
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
I
-
5
8
0
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
x
c
e
s
s
ca
n
c
e
r
r
i
s
k
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
fi
l
t
e
r
e
d
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
(
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
ab
o
v
e
)
.
N
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
w
U
n
i
t
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
n
c
y
(
U
.
S
.
EP
A
)
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
i
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
B
o
a
r
d
(
C
A
R
B
)
ru
l
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
o
n
-
r
o
a
d
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
d
i
e
s
e
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
(
D
P
M
)
an
d
P
M
2
.
5
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
20
1
4
.
i.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
,
a
n
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
a
i
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
l
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
re
d
u
c
e
t
o
x
i
c
a
i
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
(
T
A
C
)
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
t
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
.
AQ
-
5
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
g
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
ga
s
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
b
o
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
,
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
ha
v
e
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
co
n
f
l
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
p
l
a
n
,
p
o
l
i
c
y
,
o
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
ad
o
p
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
gr
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
g
a
s
e
s
.
SM
-
A
Q
-
4
.
T
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
Ac
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
A
.
1
.
4
(
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
,
A
.
1
.
5
(
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
)
,
A
.
1
.
8
(
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
l
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
,
A
.
1
.
9
(
W
o
r
k
wi
t
h
L
A
V
T
A
t
o
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
)
,
A
.
2
.
1
(
G
r
e
e
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
A
.
2
.
5
(
L
E
D
S
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
,
A
.
3
.
1
(
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
D
e
b
r
i
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
A
.
3
.
6
(C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
pr
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
s
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
t
o
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
p
o
l
i
c
e
s
A.
2
.
4
(
R
e
d
u
c
e
d
S
o
l
a
r
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
F
e
e
)
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
U
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 25
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
an
d
A
.
3
.
5
(
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
F
o
o
d
W
a
s
t
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
)
,
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
s
u
b
s
i
d
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
A
.
3
.
7
(
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
,
A
.
3
.
8
(C
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
)
,
a
n
d
A
.
3
.
9
(
C
u
r
b
s
i
d
e
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
G
H
G
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
a
w
h
o
l
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
o
p
t
a
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
g
o
a
l
o
f
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
A
wa
t
e
r
u
s
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
su
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
w
-
f
l
o
w
w
a
t
e
r
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
in
s
h
o
w
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
i
n
k
s
,
l
o
w
-
f
l
u
s
h
t
o
i
l
e
t
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
us
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
s
o
l
i
d
w
a
s
t
e
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
pr
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
r
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
o
s
t
i
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
w
i
d
e
s
o
l
i
d
wa
s
t
e
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
o
f
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
.
Fi
n
a
l
l
y
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
c
e
e
d
2
0
0
8
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
w
h
i
c
h
C
a
l
E
E
M
o
d
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
on
)
b
y
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
r
m
s
o
f
e
n
e
r
g
y
-
ef
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
HA
Z
-
1
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
T
h
e
s
i
t
e
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
.
A
s
a
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
e
r
m
s
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
re
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
i
n
20
1
0
,
t
h
e
A
l
a
m
ed
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
(
A
C
D
E
H
)
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
f
a
n
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
is
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
t
h
e
A
C
D
E
H
m
u
s
t
b
e
no
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
A
C
D
E
H
w
i
l
l
t
h
e
n
r
e
-
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
u
p
o
n
re
c
e
i
p
t
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
pm
e
n
t
/
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
.
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
1
.
T
h
e
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
no
t
i
f
y
A
C
D
E
H
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
in
t
e
n
t
t
o
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
s
o
AC
D
E
H
c
a
n
r
e
-
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
.
If
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
AC
D
E
H
,
a
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
s
i
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
s
i
t
e
he
a
l
t
h
r
i
s
k
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
f
o
r
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
si
t
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Al
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
He
a
l
t
h
.
T
h
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
de
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
t
o
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
,
t
h
e
la
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
I
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 26
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
re
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
a
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
A
C
D
E
H
.
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
o
r
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
oc
c
u
r
u
n
t
i
l
A
C
D
E
H
i
s
s
u
e
s
a
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
l
e
t
t
e
r
au
t
h
o
r
i
z
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
/
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
t
a
k
e
n
pl
a
c
e
.
T
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
me
e
t
s
t
h
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
an
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
HA
Z
-
2
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
If
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
r
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
hy
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
,
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
e
x
p
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
an
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
2
.
I
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
i
s
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
a
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
be
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
u
s
e
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
s
a
n
on
-
s
i
t
e
d
u
s
t
p
a
l
l
i
a
t
i
v
e
o
r
f
o
r
s
o
i
l
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
s
i
t
e
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
t
o
CA
L
-
E
P
A
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
.
I
f
r
e
u
s
e
i
s
n
o
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
wa
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
a
f
e
l
y
re
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
t
e
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
re
m
o
v
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
tr
e
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
ag
e
n
c
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
i
s
c
h
a
rg
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
pe
r
m
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
W
Q
C
B
)
,
D
u
b
l
i
n
S
a
n
Ra
m
o
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
w
i
t
h
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
i
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
t
o
b
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
i
n
t
o
a
st
o
r
m
o
r
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
HA
Z
-
3
Ha
z
a
r
d
s
.
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
l
e
a
d
b
a
s
e
d
p
a
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
co
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
e
x
p
o
s
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
an
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
SM
-
H
A
Z
-
3
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
a
n
d
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
pr
e
s
e
n
t
o
f
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
o
f
l
e
a
d
b
a
s
e
d
Le
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 27
Im
p
a
c
t
T
o
p
i
c
/
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ne
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
f
t
e
r
Mitigation
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
pa
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
I
f
de
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
s
u
c
h
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
d
o
f
i
n
a
n
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
N
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
ag
e
n
c
i
e
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 28
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 EIR Requirement
This Environmental Impact Report supplements the earlier Environmental Impact Report
prepared to address the impacts of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan.
The Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin on May 10, 1993 by Resolutions No. 51-93 and 53-93
and included approximately 6,920 acres of land for the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
3,328 acres of land for the Specific Plan within the GPA area generally bounded by the I-580
freeway to the south, the Alameda County/Contra Costa County line to the north, Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west and the ridgeline between Collier and Doolan
Canyon to the east. This Environmental Impact Report is hereafter referred to as the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The State Clearinghouse Number (SCH) for this EIR is 91103064. The City
Council Resolutions related to the Eastern Dublin EIR are included as Appendix 8.4.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for a proposed IKEA
furniture store on the site and associated development in 2003 (SCH #2003092076). The SEIR
analyzed a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment and related applications
to allow the development of a 317,000 square foot IKEA store on the westerly portion of the site
and a 137,000 square foot separate “lifestyle” retail center on the eastern portion of the site. The
IKEA project was never built and new entitlements are being sought for the property.
Consequently, as required by CEQA, the City has prepared and circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) for this Draft Supplement EIR to interested public and private parties. A copy
of the NOP is included as Appendix 8.2 and responses to the NOP are included in Appendix 8.3.
2.2 Scope of Supplemental EIR
Once an EIR is certified for a project, CEQA prohibits Lead Agencies from preparing a
supplemental or subsequent EIR except under specific circumstances. According to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, additional EIR-level review may be required only when substantial
changes to the project would cause new or substantially increased significant effects, or when
substantial changes in circumstances would result in new or substantially increased significant
effects, or when substantial new information shows the project would cause new or substantially
increased significant effects, or shows that previously infeasible mitigation measures would now
be feasible but the project proponent declines to adopt them.
As reflected in the Initial Study (Appendix 8.1), the proposed project (“The Green” Mixed Use
project) is a modification to Campus Office development as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the proposed General Commercial development as analyzed in the IKEA SEIR. Many of the
impacts are similar to the impacts disclosed and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the
IKEA SEIR, although new and/or more intensive environmental impacts are also analyzed in the
document.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 29
The Green project Initial Study identifies impacts to the categories of air quality and greenhouse
gas emissions, biological resources, noise, public services, recreation, population and housing,
utilities and services and transportation for further review in a Supplemental EIR. After
completion of the Initial Study, the topic of hazards and hazardous materials was also found to
be potentially significant and has been analyzed in this document. This DSEIR describes the
degree to which the project’s potential impacts to these environmental categories were
adequately addressed in the previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR. It further describes the type
and extent of potential significant impacts affecting the project site beyond those analyzed in
previous EIRs. Where supplemental significant impacts are identified, supplemental mitigation
measures are proposed to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level to the extent feasible.
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a reasonable range of alternatives, which was done in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. One of these alternatives was adopted in modified form in the 1993
approvals. However, to address the potential for new and/or substantially intensified significant
impacts on the project site, this revised DSEIR identifies additional alternatives for the project
site that could avoid or potentially lessen identified impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR are available for review at the City of Dublin
Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568.
2.3 Legal Basis for Supplemental EIR
Based on the previous EIR analysis and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, the City
has determined that a Supplemental EIR should be prepared for this project rather than a
Subsequent EIR. Subsequent and Supplemental EIRs are both similar in procedural and
substantive respects. Both types of EIRs build on a previously certified EIR. Both types of EIRs
analyze potentially significant changes to a project and/or environmental circumstances when
those changes would result in a new significant impact or would substantially increase the
severity of previously identified impacts. Both types of EIRs are circulated by themselves,
without the previously certified EIR.
With the above similarities, the choice between a Subsequent and Supplemental EIR is a matter
of the degree of additions or modifications to the previous EIR needed to analyze the new or
substantially increased significant impacts. Neither is a “new” EIR; both types of EIRs analyze
the substantial changes from the previous analysis. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the
project, the City has determined that a Supplemental EIR is appropriate for the following
reasons:
1. The project includes a proposal to change the land use on the site from General
Commercial to Mixed–Use, which allows a combination of residential and non-
residential uses. The overall type and urban character of land uses on the project site
would be similar to the approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
2. Proposed additions or modifications needed to update the previous EIR do not require a
full re-analysis of a particular impact.
3. The proposed project includes actions identified in the previously certified EIR as
implementing actions of the Eastern Dublin development program.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 30
For the above reasons, the City has determined that the current project does not raise new policy
issues as to the type, location, direction or extent of growth. Further, the nature of the potential
changes identified in the project Initial Study generally requires updating or refinement of the
previous EIR analysis, rather than a full re-analysis. Irrespective of the label, and consistent with
both Subsequent and Supplemental EIR provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and
15163, the City will not approve the project without first certifying an EIR which
comprehensively addresses the potential for significant environmental impacts of the current
project beyond those addressed in previous EIRs.
2.4 Organization of Draft Supplemental EIR
The Draft Supplemental EIR (“DSEIR”) supplements the Program EIR and Addenda certified by
the City of Dublin for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH
#911003064, “Eastern Dublin EIR, or “EDEIR,” incorporated herein by reference). It also
supplements the Previous IKEA Supplemental EIR (SCH #2003092076), prepared for a previous
development project on this site that was never constructed.
This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1: Summary of impacts and mitigation measures. This is presented in tabular
form.
• Chapter 2: Introduction. Chapter 2 describes the organization of the DSEIR.
• Chapter 3: Project Description. This chapter describes the proposed project, project
location and setting. Project Objectives are also described as well as future approvals
required to implement the proposed project.
• Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Chapter 4
includes the impact and mitigation analysis for the project. Each environmental topic
includes existing conditions (the setting); potential supplemental environmental impacts
and their level of significance; and mitigation measures recommended to reduce
identified significant impacts.
• Chapter 5: Alternatives. This chapter addresses alternatives to the proposed project and
a discussion of an environmentally superior alternative.
• Chapter 6: References. Chapter 6 includes references used in the preparation of the
DSEIR.
• Chapter 7: Report Authors. Chapter 7 lists the authors of the EIR and organizations
and persons consulted as part of the environmental analysis.
• Chapter 8: Appendices. Contained in the Appendices are the Initial Study, Notice of
Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, Resolutions No. 51-93 and 53-93 approving
the Eastern Dublin Project EIR, including mitigation findings, overriding considerations
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 31
and mitigation monitoring program; and copies of the supplemental air quality analysis,
biological analysis, noise analysis and traffic analysis.
2.5 DSEIR Review Process
The DSEIR will be circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA. Written
responses will be prepared to all relevant comments on environmental issues received during the
public review period. Public comments and responses will be compiled in a Final Supplemental
EIR (FSEIR). After certification, the City will consider the requested project approvals and make
appropriate findings based on the certified SEIR.
2.6 Topics Not Addressed in this DSEIR
Based on the Initial Study prepared by the City of Dublin (see Appendix 8.1), the following
topics will not be further analyzed in this DSEIR. They are listed with the main heading and
specific issue area.
• Aesthetics-impacts to scenic vistas, substantial damage to scenic resources and substantial
degradation of the visual character of the project site.
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources-impacts to prime farmland, agricultural zoning,
Williamson Act contracts and forestlands.
• Cultural Resources-impacts to significant historical resources
• Geology and Soils-seismic impacts, landslides, erosion of topsoil other soil and geologic
hazards.
• Hydrology and Water Quality- violation of water quality and waste discharge standards,
impacts to groundwater resources, flooding, drainage and water quality impacts.
• Land Use-division of an existing community, conflicts with land use policies or plans,
conflicts with habitat conservation plan.
• Mineral Resources.
• Noise-Impacts related to groundborne vibration and airport noise.
• Public Services-impacts to fire, police, solid waste and other utilities.
• Transportation and Traffic-changes to air traffic patterns, impacts related to design
hazards, emergency access impacts.
• Utilities and Service Systems- impacts related to drainage and solid waste facilities and
systems.
2.7 Future Environmental Analysis
This SEIR contains a project-level environmental review and is intended to serve as the CEQA
review for future land use entitlements, including Stage 1 and 2 PD-Planned Development
rezonings, any future Conditional Use Permits, Site Development Review, Parcel or Tentative
Maps, and any other permit-level entitlements that may be required for individual development
projects on the project site. Further CEQA environmental review is not anticipated to be required
for future implementing projects. However, the determination of whether further CEQA
environmental review, if any, is required for implementing discretionary approvals will be
determined in accordance with the standards under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 32
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Location
The project site contains 27.5 acres of land and is located in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area of
the City of Dublin. More specifically, the site is located on the south side of Martinelli Way
between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Drive to the west. The I-580 freeway forms the
southern boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 986-0033-
004-00, 986-0033-005-02, and 986-0033-006-00.
The project site is currently owned by Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC.
The Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has identified the project area for
future General Commercial (GC) development.
Exhibit 3.1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 3.2 shows the location of the
project area in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent land uses.
3.2 Project Area Features
Site history and existing land uses. Historically, the project site was formerly occupied by a
portion of the U.S. Army’s Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA). This
portion of the Training Area was closed and property ownership was transferred to Alameda
County in the late 1960’s. The site is vacant and contains no major stands of trees, rock
outcroppings or other significant natural features. Existing ground cover is primarily natural and
introduced grass and other ruderal plant material. Although the site is generally flat, there is
some topographic relief, likely as a result of previous land uses.
The site does contain one small modular office building, currently vacant, that was used as the
marketing office for a previous development proposal on the site. It will be removed prior to site
development.
Adjacent land uses. Properties to the west and north of the project site are vacant, but are
planned for urban uses in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
Hacienda Crossings commercial center exists east of the project site. The I-580 freeway forms
the southern boundary of the site.
Site topography. The topography of the site is generally flat. Small mounds of fill material have
been deposited on the site.
3.3 Prior Planning Approvals
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (hereafter, “Eastern Dublin project”). The
approved project was a modified version of the original General Plan Amendment (hereafter,
“GPA”) for a 6,920-acre planning area generally known as Eastern Dublin. The original GPA
proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest
portion of the GPA area and agriculture/open space designations elsewhere in the planning area
to a range of urban uses, as shown on Figure 2-E of the Eastern Dublin Draft EIR. Within the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 33
nearly 7,000 acre planning area, a new Eastern Dublin Specific Plan proposed land use policy at
a greater level of detail in order to “bridge” general plan policy and individual development
projects. Intended for both policy and regulatory use, the Specific Plan addressed 3,328 acres,
supplementing the GPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs and
regulations. (Eastern Dublin Draft EIR, hereafter, “Eastern Dublin EIR.”)
The GPA planning area was located east of the City of Dublin. The planning area is
characterized by a relatively flat plain along I-580, which gives way to rolling foothills and
increasingly steep slopes to the northeast. Apart from facilities on County property in the
southwest portion of the planning area (former Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, U.S. Naval
Hospital), the Eastern Dublin project area consisted primarily of open grasslands used for
grazing and dry farming, and scattered residences. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-3.)
The original GPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with a
mixed-use urban community. The project concept is set forth in the following excerpt from the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Residential and employment-generating uses will be balanced to enable residents to live
near work. Employment-generating uses include retail, service, office, governmental,
research and development (“R & D”), and light industrial. Residential designation [sic]
range from Rural Residential to High Density multi-family. Higher density housing has
been located near the future BART station and along a key transit corridor. Higher
densities have also been located close to commercial centers where the concentration of
population will contribute to that center’s social and economic vitality.
The project provides a full complement of regional office and retail land uses located
near freeway interchanges, local-serving commercial centers are envisioned as
pedestrian- and transit-oriented mixed-use concentrations which include retail, service,
office, and residential uses, and are carefully integrated with surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
Open space is a major component of the project’s land use plan, giving form and
character to the urban development pattern. The open space concept envisions a
community ringed by undeveloped ridgelines. Urban and open space areas will be linked
by an open space network structured along enhanced stream corridors. The circulation
concept calls for an integrated, multi-modal system that reduces potential traffic impacts
by providing area residents with choices for a preferred mode of transportation. (DEIR
pp. 2-4, Eastern Dublin Responses to Comments, hereafter, “FEIR” p. 66.)
At build-out, the GPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences, including
2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel size.
Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571
acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned, all on 6,920 acres of
land. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-7.) Build-out was expected to occur over a 20 – 30 year period
from the start of construction. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-6, Eastern Dublin Final EIR p. 8.) The
major policies of the GPA are summarized on pages 2-9 -10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 34
Exhibit 3.5 depicts the project area in relation to the current General Plan land use map and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan addresses 3,301 acres in the
western portion of the GPA planning area. Seventy percent of the GPA residential development
and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for in the Specific Plan area. (Eastern Dublin
EIR, p. 2-8.) The land use plan calls for compact villages with residential and neighborhood
serving uses. Employment-generating commercial uses are provided along arterials with transit
access. (Id.) The major policies of the Specific Plan are set forth on pages 2-10 to 2-14 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin prepared a Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin project
based on the original 6,920 acre GPA planning area and land use designations, and 3,301 acre
Specific Plan area, both as described above. (SCH # 91103064.) The EIR also identifies a third
component of Project Implementation. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-4.) This component includes
“procedural steps … to be undertaken for full implementation of the [GPA and Specific Plan]
Project; Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determinations on
annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD),
detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park Department (LARPD), and sphere-of-
influence boundary changes; prezoning, and review and approval of specific development
projects.” (Id.)
The City initiated the Eastern Dublin project in 1988 after several separate development projects
were proposed for the area. The goal of the project was to provide comprehensive planning for
development types, locations and patterns in Eastern Dublin, which would be implemented
through future individual development projects. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR statement of
project objectives, one of the objectives of the project was to preserve visually-sensitive and
biologically-sensitive habitat areas, encourage development patterns that support transit on local
and regional levels, and maintain balanced employment and housing opportunities to reduce
traffic congestion and air pollution. (Eastern Dublin EIR, p. 2-5.)
The EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects of adopting and implementing the GPA
and Specific Plan project. The EIR also analyzes the cumulative effects of the Eastern Dublin
project, that is, the project “within the context of regional development.” (DEIR p. 5.0-1.) As
required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR includes a list of ongoing and future development
projects that, together with the Eastern Dublin project, might “compound subregional (i.e. Tri-
Valley) environmental problems.” (Id.) Reflecting a surge of development interest at the time,
the cumulative projects in Dublin alone included 924 units, plus another 3,133 units on 3,140
acres in Western Dublin, and the potential intensification of uses at Parks RFTA. The Dougherty
Valley Specific Plan projected 11,000 units; while the City of Livermore was considering the
North Livermore General Plan Amendment with a buildout potential between 3,713 and 16,513
units. The various cumulative projects also proposed several million square feet of non-
residential development. The list of cumulative projects from the Eastern Dublin EIR is shown
on Figure 5-A of that DEIR. Virtually all of the potential new development areas in the list of
cumulative projects was undeveloped land, primarily in agriculture and/or open space uses, as
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 35
evidenced by the aerial photographs which form the base maps for Figures 2-B and 2-C of the
Eastern Dublin DEIR.
As would be expected for a major general plan level project during a time of major development
activity, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified many potential significant impacts on both a project
(GPA and Specific Plan) level and a cumulative (regional) level. Mitigation measures were
proposed and adopted for most of the significant impacts to reduce them to less than significant.
The City of Dublin would implement some of the mitigation measures directly; examples include
but are not limited to adopting a stream corridor restoration program, designating substantial
areas within the project area as Open Space or Rural Residential where low density development
will also provide foraging habitat, and continuing to participate in regional studies of future
transportation requirements, improvements and funding. Other mitigations would be
implemented through conditions or development standards for future development projects;
examples include but are not limited to proportionate-share contributions to roadway
improvements and transit service extensions. Many of the mitigation measures also included
policies and action programs identified in the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan documents.
Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be reduced
to a less than significant level. Several of these impacts were cumulative level impacts, such as
loss of agriculture and open space, I-580 and other regional traffic impacts, and air quality
impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project alternatives, including No
Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative, and a
Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed whether the alternatives would avoid any of the
otherwise unavoidable impacts. As further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified
version of the Reduced Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in
compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) The City Council also certified an
Addendum dated May 4, 1994 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area
alternative and concluded that this alternative “will have no environmental impacts not addressed
in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan.” (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no
subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163
for approval of the modified alternative.
A second Addendum was later prepared. Dated August 22, 1994, the second Addendum updated
plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May
4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as
the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the “EDEIR” and are incorporated herein by reference.
IKEA Project Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse #2003092076). A Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for proposed development of an IKEA store and ancillary
commercial uses was certified by the City Council on March 16, 2004 by Resolution No. 44-04.
This document will be referred to as the "IKEA SEIR." It evaluated the following impacts:
Air Quality;
Biological Resources; and
Transportation and Circulation.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 36
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (City Council Resolution No. 44-04)
for the following impacts:
Excessive levels of ozone precursors above regulatory thresholds on a project and
cumulative basis,
Excessive levels of carbon monoxide emissions above regulatory thresholds,
Increase of project traffic on local freeways on a cumulative basis.
A copy of City Council Resolution No. 44-04 is contained in Appendix 8.5 of this SEIR.
3.4 Project Applications
Overview. The proposed project would involve constructing a mixed-use commercial and
residential development project on the site that would include up to 40,000 gross square feet of
retail and restaurant floor area and 400 dwelling units. The conceptual site plan is shown on
Exhibit 3.3.
The project would include grading of the site, construction of all commercial and residential
buildings, installation of utilities and services, placement of landscaping and placement of
identification signs. A number of land use approvals are required to be granted by the City of
Dublin in order to construct The Green project, including amendments to the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These are described below.
A portion of the project also includes amending the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use, which
allows a combination of Medium density (6.1-14.0 units/acre) to Medium-High density (14.1-
25.0 units/acre) residential uses and at least one non-residential use such as office or retail.
Proposed land uses. Proposed uses would include a mix of residential and commercial uses.
Proposed commercial uses would include up to 5,000 square feet of retail space and up to 35,000
square feet of restaurant space. Specific tenants have not yet been identified but future uses
would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and appropriate
site zoning.
Proposed residential uses would include up to 400 condominium and townhome dwellings in
buildings clustered throughout the project site. The proposed project also includes a private open
space area to serve the residential neighborhood and a proposed trail to connect the project site to
points west.
Proposed retail/restaurant buildings would be sited facing a central landscaped plaza area, “The
Green,” extending in a north-south direction from Martinelli Way to a point approximately in the
center of the site. Restaurant buildings would be located facing The Green plaza area as well as
several pad buildings along Martinelli Way.
The final design, number and location of the retail and restaurant buildings may change
depending on market demand, but the overall amount of commercial development would remain
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 37
at 40,000 gross square feet. The final design, number, and precise location of residential uses
may change slightly to respond to market conditions, but the residential uses would be located
around the retail/residential buildings as shown on Exhibit 3.3 and would not exceed 400 units
on the project site.
On-site resident and guest parking would be provided for both retail and residential uses. Key
features of the project would be a central landscaped plaza surrounded by retail and restaurant
uses. Plaza and open space areas would comprise approximately 2.25 acres of land.
Building design features. It is anticipated that the commercial buildings within the project area
will be a combination of one and two story construction. The residential buildings generally have
6-12 units per building and are three to four stories tall (up to 50 feet maximum). The
architectural design of buildings, use of materials and exterior colors will be reviewed and
approved by the City of Dublin through the Site Development Review (SDR) process.
Circulation and access. Vehicular access is proposed to be provided into and out of the site
from two adjacent public roadways, as follows:
• Martinelli Way: A main signalized full entry would be provided along Martinelli Way in
the approximate center of the site. This drive would mirror a main entry for the approved
Village at Dublin commercial center to the north (now referred to as “Persimmon Place”).
A secondary limited right-turn in and out would be constructed east of the main entry
along Martinelli Way.
• Arnold Drive: One restricted right-turn in and out driveway would be provided to and
from this street, located on the west side of the project site.
No vehicular access would be provided onto Hacienda Drive and access is precluded along the I-
580 freeway.
Interior vehicular circulation is proposed to be provided by a major east-west drive, as shown on
Exhibit 3.4 along with a number of smaller driveways within the site that would serve residential
buildings.
Pedestrian connections would be made to the Eastern Dublin/Pleasanton BART station located
west of the site and to the existing Hacienda Crossings Center to the east. Interior pedestrian and
bicycle circulation opportunities would be provided. Public sidewalks would be constructed
along all adjacent public street frontages.
An approximately 15-foot wide trail would be provided on the site adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The trail would be on private property and would be privately maintained. The trail would
provide access between Hacienda Drive and the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station to the west.
Bicycle parking will be provided throughout the site in accordance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance and the California Building Code.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 38
Site grading. The applicant proposes to re-grade the site to improve site drainage and to allow
for building pads to be constructed on the site.
Landscaping. Plantings in the form of trees, shrubs and groundcover would be provided
adjacent to Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, Arnold Drive, I-580 freeway frontage, and
throughout the project site. Trees would also be planted within the parking lots, adjacent to
proposed buildings, and concentrated in the commercial plaza and residential open space areas.
Detailed landscape plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin through the Site
Development Review (SDR) process.
Inclusionary Housing Provision. The City of Dublin requires that a minimum of 12.5% of the
number of dwelling units within a proposed project be reserved as affordable dwellings. Under
certain conditions and with the approval of the City, project developers may elect to pay a fee in
lieu of constructing up to 40% of the required number of affordable units. The City Council may
also allow developers to construct affordable units at an off-site location or to satisfy the
Inclusionary Ordinance by some other alternative means at their sole discretion.
Public Art. Since the proposed project would include more than 20 dwelling units as well as a
significant non-residential component, the project developer will be required to either install one
or more pieces of public art on the project site or to provide in-lieu funds for the installation of
public art in a different location. The value of public art, or the in-lieu fee payment, is required
to be equivalent to 0.5% of the project’s building valuation, not including land value.
Signs. Signs would be constructed to identify the overall project as well as future individual
tenants within the commercial portion of the complex and residential developments. The number,
type, location and design of future signs will be determined through the Site Development
Review process.
Utility services. Domestic and recycled water service and sewer service would be provided to
the project by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
The project applicant will be required to develop a storm drain and water quality master plan to
ensure that stormwater runoff is collected and transported off of the site in a manner consistent
with Zone 7 Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Dublin engineering
standards and requirements. The project applicant will also be required to comply with City of
Dublin surface water quality standards.
Requested land use approvals. As noted above, a number of land use approvals are required to
construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below.
General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Map designates the
project site as “General Commercial,” which provides land for a range of regional- and
community-serving retail, service, and office uses. Uses allowed in this designation include,
but are not limited to: retail uses, including major community-serving uses (e.g.,
supermarkets, drug stores, hardware stores, apparel stores, etc.) and regionally-oriented retail
uses (e.g., high-volume retail uses such as discount centers, promotional centers, home
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 39
improvement centers, furniture outlets, and auto malls); all office uses; hotels; banks; service
uses; and restaurants and other eating and drinking establishments. An application has been
filed with the City to change the land use to a “Mixed-Use” land use designation, which
allows the combination of Medium to Medium-High Density residential housing and at least
one non-residential use, such as office or retail. Office or retail uses could include uses such
as stores, restaurants business and professional offices, and entertainment facilities.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. An amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan has also been requested by the applicant that would change the Specific Plan land use
designation from “General Commercial” to “Mixed-Use.”
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and Rezoning. The project site is presently zoned PD-
Planned Development. The existing PD zoning district only allows commercial land uses. In
order to allow the development to be constructed as proposed, a Stage 1/Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezone is required to permit the proposed uses, square footage of commercial
development, number and type of residential units, number of proposed parking spaces,
landscaping and other features. A Planned Development Rezone is being considered to
ensure consistency with the requested General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments.
Site Development Review. Site Development Review (SDR) approvals must be granted by
the City of Dublin to ensure that building architecture, landscaping, signs and other facilities
are consistent with design guidelines and other policies contained in various City land use
regulations and guidelines.
Parcel or Vesting Tentative Map(s). Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of
Dublin to create individual building lots on the project site.
Development Agreement. The Applicant may request a Development Agreement (DA). A
DA would articulate Applicant responsibilities for development impact fees, Community
Benefit contributions, reimbursements to other parties for oversizing of infrastructure, as well
as project vesting timeframes.
The above described approvals and activities constitute the project for the purposes of this
DSEIR.
3.5 Project Objectives
The objectives of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
(DEIR p. 2-5.) All of the identified objectives for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan remain
objectives of the current project as it implements the comprehensive land use plan adopted in
1993. Additional objectives of the project include.
a) Initiation of a zoning-level framework to guide future development projects within the
Project area consistent with the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan;
b) Creation a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding
properties and land uses;
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 40
c) Construction of a mix of land uses that result in a fiscally positive impact on the City’s
financial and service systems;
d) Ensuring a long-term financially viable infill project providing for the creation of new
jobs, commercial services for the community, opportunities for public gathering spaces
and open space areas.
e) Offering a diverse residential unit offering that will appeal to a diverse population
demographic;
f) Creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with
direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the
north, Hacienda Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to
the west;
g) Developing a project that responds to a range of transportation choices, including
walking, bicycling and public transit (BART and bus service), to reduce traffic
congestion and greenhouse gas emissions;
h) Providing for a broad range of open spaces integrated into the walkable urban village
atmosphere, including children’s play area, green space park and vibrant open plaza
surrounded by shops, cafés and restaurants;
i) Implementing high-quality urban architectural design that enhances and embraces the
prominence and visibility of the project location;
j) Providing for a prominent physical and visual connection to the grocery-anchored
shopping center to the north of the project site and continuity in architectural and site
design between the two properties and
k) Creation of a gateway to the project site through prominent building siting and placement
of distinctive features at both Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way and at the main project
driveway off Martinelli Way.
3.6 Future Actions Using This Supplemental EIR
This Draft SEIR supplements the certified Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR pursuant to
Sections 15162 and 16163 of the CEQA Guidelines for the following anticipated future actions
related to the proposed project.
City action on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment;
City action on the Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
approval;
City actions on the Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan
approval;
City actions on future Parcel or Tentative Maps, Site Development Review, Conditional
Use Permit, and on any future Development Agreement; and
City actions on building, grading, encroachment, and site improvement permits.
In addition to the above approvals, the DSEIR may also be used by state or regional agencies in
their review of other permits required for the project (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers permit
related to on-site wetlands, CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreements, California Endangered
Species Act permits, Water Quality Certification or waiver by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board under the Clean Water Act), permits issued by the Dublin San Ramon Services
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 41
District, a Notice of Intent from the State Water Resources Control Board and other
approvals/agencies as needed.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Hayward
SanLeandro
Oakland
Berkeley
WalnutCreek
Richmond
San Francisco
DalyCity
Alam
e
d
a
Mar tinez
SanRafael
MillValley
S AN P A B L O
B A Y
SanJose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
PaloAlto
RedwoodCity
HalfMoonBay
Concord
DUBLIN
Fremont
Pleasanton
Livermore
SAN
FRA NCISC O
B A Y
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
O
c
e
a
n
Newark
San Mateo
0 2 4 6 8 10 miles
4
280
280
880
680
580
580
580
680
680
80
880
Blue
Ox
Assoc
iates,
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
rni
a
3-
1
4
-
2
0
1
4
Exhibit 3.1
REGIONAL LOCATION
PROJECT SITE
Blue
Ox
Assoc
iates,
Be
r
k
e
l
e
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
rni
a
0
3
-1
4
-
2
0
1
4
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
County Line
Project Site
DUBLI N
P L EASANT O N
Exhibit 3.2
PROJECT CONTEXT
IN DUBLIN
CONTRA C
O
S
T A COUNTY
ALAMEDA
C
O
U
N
T
Y
I-580
I
-
6
8
0
Do
u
g
h
e
rty
R
o
a
d
Ho
p
y
a
rd
R
d
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
i
v
e
daoR arajassaT
Dublin Blvd
Central Parkway
Gleason
D
r
i
v
e
El
C
h
a
r
ro
R
d
Fall
o
n
R
o
a
d
Sant
a
R
i
t
a
R
d
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
B
L
I
N
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
E
I
R
(
S
E
I
R
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
.
3
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
3-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
3
6
‘
3-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
o
m
e
l
o
f
t
b
o
n
u
s
,
3
6
’
t
o
4
6
’
4-
s
t
o
r
i
e
s
,
4
6
’
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
I
E
S
,
H
E
I
G
H
T
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
,
D
U
B
L
I
N
,
C
A
KT
G
Y
|
B
C
V
|
S
M
I
T
H
+
S
M
I
T
H
|
Q
U
A
T
T
R
O
1/
2
4
/
2
0
1
4
SO
U
R
C
E
:
KT
G
Y
,
B
C
V
,
S
m
i
t
h
+
S
m
i
t
h
,
a
n
d
Q
u
a
t
t
r
o
,
1
-
2
4
-
2
0
1
4
.
CI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
B
L
I
N
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
E
I
R
(
S
E
I
R
)
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
3
.
4
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
W
A
Y
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
TH
E
G
R
E
E
N
A
T
P
A
R
K
P
L
A
C
E
Qu
a
t
t
r
o
50
0
L
a
G
o
n
d
a
W
a
y
Su
i
t
e
2
9
5
Da
n
v
i
l
l
e
,
C
A
9
4
5
2
6
DU
B
L
I
N
,
C
A
KT
G
Y
G
r
o
u
p
,
I
n
c
.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
+
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
58
0
S
e
c
o
n
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Su
i
t
e
2
0
0
Oa
k
l
a
n
d
,
C
A
9
4
6
0
7
51
0
.
4
6
3
.
2
0
4
7
kt
g
y
.
c
o
m
OP
T
I
O
N
A
:
R
O
A
D
H
E
I
R
A
R
C
H
Y
KT
G
Y
#
2
0
1
3
-
0
0
1
0
SO
U
R
C
E
:
KT
G
Y
G
r
o
u
p
,
I
n
c
.
,
2
-
1
0
-
2
0
1
4
.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 46
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Topics Addressed in the DEIR
This section of the DEIR identifies specific environmental areas which may be affected as a
result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impact areas are discussed individually
in subsections 4.1 through 4.8:
4.1 Population and Housing
4.2 Transportation and Traffic
4.3 Community Services and Facilities
4.4 Sewer, Water and Water Quality
4.5 Biological Resources
4.6 Noise
4.7 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Each topic area is covered in the following manner:
A. Environmental Setting
A discussion of existing conditions, facilities, services and general environmental
conditions on and around the project sites.
B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 IKEA
SEIR
C. Supplemental Environmental Impacts
An identification and evaluation of whether the potential impacts on the
environment identified in the Initial Study, should the project be constructed as
proposed would result in a significant substantially increased manner beyond the
analysis in the Eastern Dublin EIR based on the standards of significance set forth
therein.
D. Supplemental Mitigation Measures
An identification of specific efforts and measures which can be incorporated into
the project to reduce identified supplemental environmental impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 47
4.1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
INTRODUCTION
This topic of population, housing and employment was addressed in Section 3.2 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This section of the DEIR updates the analysis in the EDSP based upon the proposed
amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to add population
through residential development on this site that is currently approved for commercial land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is vacant and contains no dwellings. The most recent action of the City of Dublin
was to approve a Stage 2 Planned Development rezoning on the site to allow development of up
to 305,000 square foot shopping center, which was not constructed. The project site is currently
designated as “General Commercial” on the Dublin General Plan Land Use Diagram and in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR discussed the anticipated build-out number of jobs
within the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area as 28,238 and the
number of anticipated residents as 27,794. At build-out, there would be approximately 17,970
dwellings at various densities and product types.
The topic of jobs/housing balance in the Tri-Valley area was also discussed in the EDSP EIR.
No impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of population, housing and employment was not analyzed in the IKEA
SEIR.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Dublin General Plan. The General Plan land use designation allows for a range of regional and
community serving retail, service and office uses, restaurant and other eating and drinking
establishments and similar uses. Mixed-use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office
uses with residential uses are allowed as part of a mix when location and design ensure
compatibility.
The Dublin General Plan includes the following guiding and implementing policies dealing with
residential compatibility.
• Guiding Policy 2.5.4.A. Encourage the development of a balanced mixed-use community
in the Eastern Extended Planning Area, that is well integrated with both natural and urban
systems, and provides for a safe, comfortable and attractive environmental for living and
working.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 48
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designed the project site as “General
Commercial,” that allows a range of regional and community service retail, service and office
uses. Mixed–use projects incorporating retail, service and/or residential uses are encouraged with
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility.
The following Specific Plan policies address land use and residential location and diversity.
• Policy 4.2. Encourage higher density residential development within convenient walking
distance of shopping areas, employment centers, transit stations/stops and other
community facilities.
• Policy 4-5. Concentrate residential development in the less environmentally constrained
portions of the plan area and encourage cluster development as a method of reducing or
avoiding impact to constrained or environmentally sensitive areas.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section of the SEIR assess the impacts of introducing up to 400 dwellings within the
commercial-designated site and the potential to induce, directly or indirectly, population growth
on surrounding properties.
Significance Criteria. The following criterion has been used to identify the significance of any
supplemental population and housing as a result of approving and implementing a proposed
project:
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Potential Growth Inducement Impact. As noted in the Project Description,
proposed residential uses would include up to 400 condominium and townhome dwellings in
buildings clustered throughout the project site.
The City of Dublin currently uses a standard per dwelling unit household population of 2.7
persons per dwelling. This is based on the 2010 federal census and State Department of Finance
population data (Marnie Delgado, Dublin Community Development Department, 8/19/13),
Based on the current dwelling unit occupancy rate, there would be up to 1,080 residents on the
site at full build-out of the residential portion of the project.
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR used differing per-dwelling occupancy calculations (see Table 3.2-
5). These factors are 2.0 persons per dwelling for attached units (condominium and townhouses)
and 3.2 persons per dwelling for single-family detached dwellings. Using these occupancy
factors, the residential portion of the project would generate up to 800 residents.
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area beyond that
already forecasted for the City of Dublin. The City of Dublin Housing Element estimates that the
population of the City will be 62,700 residents in 2020. The proposed project provides for the
future development of up to 400 residential dwelling units. Based on population estimates of 2.7
persons per household, the proposed project would increase the population by approximately
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 49
1,080 persons. Dublin’s current population (2013) is 50,254 persons. The addition of 1,080
people is expected to be within the projected number of City residents in 2020. To the extend
the Project’s population growth is in addition to the projected population growth in 2020, it will
not constitute substantial population growth because it would only represent a 1.7% increase in
the total anticipated population for the City.
The proposed project would increase the residential population generate by the project site over
that currently permitted. The current General Commercial General Plan land use designation
allows “mixed use projects incorporating retail, service, and/or office uses are encouraged, with
residential uses also allowed as part of the mix when location and design ensure compatibility,”
so some number of residential uses could be permitted on site without a General Plan
Amendment.
Additionally, the City is either considering, or has already approved, a number of projects where
the proposed/approved number of residential units is less than previously anticipated, and where
the development density on several different parcels within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has
been reduced. These projects include:
1. The Groves Lot 3: Previously approved for 304 units, now approved for 122 units;
2. Dublin Ranch Subarea 3: Previously approved for 484 units, project reconfigured and
approved with 437 units;
3. Transit Center Site A-1: The Transit Center Master Plan allocated 131 units to the site,
the City is currently processing a General Plan Amendment request to reduce the number
of units on site to 52; and
4. Wallis Ranch: Previously approved for 935 units, the current project proposal is for 806
units.
Taking into account the above projects, the number of units expected to be constructed in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan is reduced by 437 units. With the addition of the proposed 400 unit
project, the end result is still a 37 unit reduction in the total number of units expected in Eastern
Dublin.
The proposed mixed-use project would also be consistent with applicable policies contained in
the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that encourage higher-density mixed-
use developments near transit stops. The proposed project would also further the intent and
purpose of the regional Bay Area Plan by providing higher density housing with a mix of
commercial uses in a Priority Development Plan (PDA) plan area.
Finally, the proposed project would rely on existing roads to provide access to and from the site
as well as using existing major water and wastewater lines in adjacent toads. There would be no
requirement to extend roads or major utility lines to serve the project, since these currently exist.
For the reasons set forth above, the proposed project would not result in substantial population
growth in the City.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 50
Cumulative impacts. The appropriate area of analysis for cumulative population growth
inducing impacts is the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as described in the Project Description
section of this DSEIR. The project site is surrounded on three sides by properties that are already
currently developed or have pending development applications on file with the City of Dublin.
The Dublin Transit Center has been approved west of the project site and the Hacienda Crossings
regional commercial site is located east of The Green site. The City of Dublin has approved The
Village at Dublin retail commercial project to the north. Therefore, all surrounding properties
have been developed or are considering development and there would be no cumulative impact
with respect to inducement of population growth within the immediately surrounding area.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 51
4.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
Transportation and circulation for this development site was analyzed in Chapter 3.3 of the 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (Eastern Dublin EIR), a program
EIR for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area. It was also analyzed in
the IKEA SEIR. This section describes the current transportation-related setting. It examines the
potential effects associated with the implementation of the proposed project on the near-term and
future transportation system to determine if they would result in new significant impacts or
substantial increase in severity of previously identified impacts in the previous EIRs.
Information and analysis included in the following section was prepared by Kittelson &
Associates in October 2013. Technical information, including level of service calculations, is on
file with the City of Dublin.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Existing Roadway Network. The roadway network is made up of freeways, arterials, collectors
and local streets. Figure 4.2-1 illustrates the roadway network in the project vicinity.
Freeways. Regional vehicular access to the site is provided primarily by the freeway system that
serves eastern Alameda County. Interstate 580 (I-580) is an east-west facility that runs along the
southern boundary of the project site. It spans between US Highway 101 in the North Bay city of
San Rafael and Interstate 5 just south of the Central Valley city of Tracy with direct connections
to Interstate 80, Interstate 680, Interstate 205, and State Route 238. It has eight-to-ten travel lanes
in the vicinity of the project site and carries approximately 197,000 average daily vehicles and
15,800 peak hour vehicles1 between Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road. The nearest access to I-
580 from the project site is provided by the ramps on Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road.
I-580 is designated as a Route of Regional Significance (RRS) in the Tri-Valley Transportation
Plan and Action Plans Update (Tri-Valley Action Plan) adopted by the Tri-Valley Transportation
Council (TVTC) in November 2009. Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri-Valley Action
Plan are major roadway and freeway corridors that serve regional traffic. Aside from I-580,
Tassajara Road, Hacienda Drive, Dublin Boulevard, and Dougherty Road in the project vicinity
are also designated as Routes of Regional Significance. These routes along with other key
arterials, collectors, and local streets in the study area are described below.
1 California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, 2012.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 53
Arterials, Collectors and Local Streets. A network of arterial, collector and local roadways
provide local and regional connections to and from the project site.
Martinelli Way is an east-west collector that spans between Iron Horse Parkway and
Hacienda Drive. It serves as the northern boundary and provides the main vehicular
access to the project site. In the immediate vicinity of the project site, Martinelli Way is a
divided road with two to three travel lanes on each direction but narrows to one travel
lane in each direction west of Arnold Road.
Hacienda Drive is a six-lane divided roadway in the project’s vicinity and serves as the
eastern boundary of the Project site. It serves as the eastern boundary of the project site.
The north-south roadway extends between Gleason Drive in Dublin to West Las Positas
Boulevard in Pleasanton serving a number of retail commercial centers and business
parks along the corridor. Hacienda Drive provides access to I-580 at its ramps just south
of the project site and is a designated Route of Regional Significance. It is classified as a
collector road north of I-580 and an arterial south of I-580.
Arnold Road serves as the western boundary and provides vehicular access to the project
site. It has two travel lanes in the immediate vicinity of the site. The collector road
extends between Santa Rita Jail just north of Broder Boulevard and Altamirano Avenue
which is a frontage road on the north side of I-580 that provides access to the Dublin/
Pleasanton BART station. There is no freeway access from Arnold Road.
Dublin Boulevard runs parallel to I-580 in the east-west direction through Dublin. The
Route of Regional Significance is classified as a six-lane divided arterial west of
Tassajara Road through Dougherty Road past Interstate 680. Dublin Boulevard extends
east of Tassajara Road to Fallon Road as a four- to five-lane collector road.
Tassajara Road/ Santa Rita Road is a north-south arterial that extends from the Contra
Costa County line to I-580 east of the project site as Tassajara Road. North of the Contra
Costa County line, it continues as Camino Tassajara, which runs northwesterly to just
west of Interstate 680 in Danville. The Danville segment is called Sycamore Valley
Road. South of I-580, the road continues as Santa Rita Road, which runs southwesterly to
downtown Pleasanton. The segment that runs through downtown is called Main Street.
The route of regional significance provides access to I-580 and has five to seven lanes in
the study area.
Dougherty Road is a six-lane arterial that spans from I-580 north to Contra Costa County,
where it continues as Bollinger Canyon Road and travels northwesterly to terminate at
Crow Canyon Road west of Interstate 680 in San Ramon. South of I-580, Dougherty
Road is known as Hopyard Road, which extends southerly to downtown Pleasanton.
Central Parkway is a collector, which runs in an east-west direction parallel to Dublin
Boulevard between Arnold Road and Fallon Road. It is a two-lane divided road with
raised landscaped medians.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 54
Existing Transit Service. Public transit services in the vicinity of the project site include
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) fixed-route and paratransit bus services
and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) commuter rail.
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority. Wheels is a fixed-route bus service provided by
the LAVTA for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. There are
currently seven routes that serve the project site vicinity including two school-focused routes
(Route 501 and 502). All but the school routes include stops on Dublin Boulevard and at the
(East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART station less than a quarter mile from the project site. In addition,
bus stops are also found along Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive.
Table 4.2-1 describes the routes, schedule, average number of passengers per hour on each route,
and estimated number of boardings during the peak hour.
Table 4.2-1. Wheels Bus Routes
Bus
Line Route Description Schedule
Average
Passengers/Hr*
Peak Hour
Boardings*
1 Dublin/Pleasanton BART to
East Dublin
Weekdays 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. over the weekend, 30-
minute headways
7.3 13
2 Dublin/Pleasanton BART
BART to Dublin Ranch Weekdays 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and
6:30 p.m., 45-60 minutes headways
11.6 25
12 Transit Center to
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Weekdays between 6:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., 30-60
minute headways 13.5 48
54
Pleasanton ACE Station to
Hacienda Business Park to
Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Weekdays between 5:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., 60-90 minute headways 24.7 25
R^
Livermore to Dublin/
Pleasanton BART to
Stoneridge Mall
Weekdays between 5:15 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 15-
minute headways
N/A N/A
501 East Dublin to Dublin High
School
One bus operates between 7:10 a.m. and 7:40 a.m.
in the morning and one between 2:55 p.m. and 3:25
p.m. in the afternoon on weekdays
N/A N/A
502 Dublin Ranch Village and
Dublin High School
One bus operates between 7:10 a.m. and 7:40 a.m.
in the morning and one between 2:55 p.m. and 3:25
p.m. in the afternoon on weekdays
N/A N/A
N/A = not available; * Per LAVTA Fiscal Year 2011 data.
^ Route R is a bus RAPID transit route that provides faster transit service in the Tri-Valley area.
Source: LAVTA Wheels website: <http://www.wheelsbus.com/>accessed on October 14, 2013.
LAVTA, Short Range Transit Plan FY2012-2021, adopted November 2012.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). BART provides transit rail service to San Francisco, Oakland,
Pleasanton, Pittsburg, Richmond, Fremont and a number of intermediate stations from the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, which is approximately one-quarter mile from the project site.
The BART station also serves as a transit hub, where bus lines converge and offer bus transfers.
BART operates in 5- to 20-minute intervals between 4:00 a.m. and midnight, Monday through
Friday; 6:00 a.m. to midnight on Saturdays; and 8:00 a.m. to midnight on Sundays and major
holidays.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 55
Existing Bicycle Facilities. The existing and proposed bicycle facilities in Dublin are identified
in the City’s Bikeways Master Plan2 and in the Circulation and Scenic Highways Element of the
City of Dublin General Plan3. Originally adopted in 2007, the Bikeways Master Plan is being
updated. Bikeways are defined by the following three classes in the California Department of
Transportation’s (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual:
Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of
bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.
Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-
exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited,
but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and
shared with pedestrians and motorists.
A Class I bike path, the Iron Horse Trail, is located roughly a half mile from the project site. The
Iron Horse Trail is a regional Class I bikeway that currently starts near the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and runs northerly through Tri-Valley cities to terminate near
State Route 4 in Concord. When completed, the Iron Horse Trail will extend east from the (East)
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station to the San Joaquin County line east of Livermore. Another
Class I bikeway on the north side of Dublin Boulevard connects the Iron Horse Trail with
Tassajara Creek Trail, another Class I bikeway to the east that continues northeasterly to
Tassajara Road. A Class I bike path is also provided along the east side of Dougherty Road from
its intersection with the Iron Horse Trail to the Contra Costa County line.
Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road, and Central Parkway. In addition, Class II bike lanes can be found on the west side of
Arnold Road between Dublin Boulevard and Martinelli Way and on both sides of Arnold Road
north of Dublin Boulevard. The City of Dublin has proposed the completion of the Class II
bikeways on Arnold Drive from Martinelli Way to (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, on
Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Iron Horse Parkway, and along Altamirano Avenue
between Arnold Road and the (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART parking lot, which would provide
a multimodal connection to the project site. Class II bike lanes are also proposed on the west side
of Dougherty Road, and along Iron Horse Parkway and DeMarcus Boulevard south of Dublin
Boulevard.
Existing Pedestrian Facilities. The City is currently developing a Pedestrian Master Plan. The
Plan will establish goals and policies related to pedestrian facilities and circulation in Dublin.
Sidewalks are generally provided along the frontage of developed parcels in the project vicinity.
Even along undeveloped parcels, a separated walkway is usually provided to provide
uninterrupted pedestrian access. The sidewalks are often separated from the roadway by planting
strips or screening trees particularly along arterials. While there are no concrete sidewalks along
2 City of Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, Fehr and Peers, June 2007.
3 City of Dublin General Plan, adopted February 11, 1985 and amended as of June 2013.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 56
Martinelli Way and Arnold Road along the project site frontage, paved asphalt walkways are
provided along the north side of on Martinelli Way and along the west side on Arnold Road. On
the eastside of project site along Hacienda Drive, there is a concrete sidewalk with planting strip.
A concrete sidewalk is also provided along the south side of Altamirano Avenue connecting the
project site with the (East) Dublin/Pleasanton BART station.
Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are provided across all legs of the Martinelli
Way intersections of Arnold Road and the project driveway access and across all but the south
leg of the Hacienda Drive intersection. They are also provided across all legs of the Dublin
Boulevard intersections of Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road. Curb ramps are also provided at all
corners of these five intersections.
Regulatory Setting. A number of agencies have jurisdictions over the project area. These
agencies are briefly discussed below.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has jurisdiction over state
highways in the project vicinity. Caltrans constructs and maintains all state highways, and sets
design standards that are often used by local governments.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the state-designated metropolitan
planning organization for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area; it has authority for regional
planning, distributing and administering federal and state funds for all modes of transportation,
and assuring that projects are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC). Alameda CTC coordinates
transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs local, regional, state
and federal funding for project implementation. It develops Countywide Transportation Plan
(CTP), a long-range policy document that guides transportation funding decisions. The Alameda
CTC also acts as the Congestion Management Agency for Alameda County which is
legislatively required to develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP). CMP requires
analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway and transit systems if a project
generates 100 or more PM peak hour trips.
Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC). TVTC is comprised of the Cities of Dublin, San
Ramon, Pleasanton, and Livermore, the Town of Danville, and Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. It developed the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, last updated in 2009, to
address transportation issues within the Tri-Valley area. The Plan designates Routes of Regional
Significance, which are roadways and freeway corridors that serve regional traffic. TVTC
coordinates the transportation planning in the Tri-Valley area and oversees the expenditures of
the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee, which is a traffic impact fee levied on new
developments.
City of Dublin. The City of Dublin is the primary local agency for determining the future success
of the East Dublin community. The City’s General Plan outlines the goals for future growth and
the City of Dublin municipal codes enforce the rules and regulations. Also, the Eastern Dublin
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 57
Specific Plan, last updated in 2010, sets forth specific goals, polices and standards applicable to
East Dublin.
The City of Dublin has adopted three fee programs to fund necessary improvements. All
development projects in East Dublin are require to contribute a proportionate share to these fee
programs or construct the improvements included in the programs.
East Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. The City of Dublin has adopted the East
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program in 1995 to fund transportation improvements in 1) the
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment project area; 2) other areas of Dublin; and 3) the
region where developments in East Dublin would affect. Such improvements includes
those assumed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, identified as mitigation measures
in the EIR, and necessary for the East Dublin area to develop. The portion of the fee
program that funds regional improvements has been replaced by the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fee described below.
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. The Tri-Valley Transportation Development
Fee was established in conjunction with the Cities of Pleasanton, Livermore and San
Ramon, the Town of Danville, and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa in 1998.
The intent of the fee is to fund transportation improvements that would benefit the Tri-
Valley region.
Freeway Interchange Fee. The Freeway Interchange Fee was adopted by the City of
Dublin to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on I-580
that also benefit East Dublin.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The East Dublin EIR evaluated transportation conditions for Year 2010
scenario and Cumulative Build-out scenario. All adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern
Dublin EIR would apply to development projects within East Dublin. The City has established
fee programs to collect fair share contributions for implementation of the improvements. Such
programs are described in the “City of Dublin Fee Program” section below. Other impacts and
mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR are summarized below.
Freeway Operations. The EIR concluded that the Specific Plan project would have residual
significant and unavoidable impact related to freeway operations at the following segments under
Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout scenarios:
I-580 between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B)
Upon certification of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution No. 53.93) for this significant and unavoidable impact.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 58
The EIR further concluded that the significant impacts related to the following freeway segments
would be reduced to level of insignificance under Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout
scenarios:
I-580 between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C)
I-680 north of I-580 interchange (IM 3.3/D)
I-580 east of Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/E)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on freeway operations:
Require all non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in a
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. (MM 3.3/2.0)
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to regional transportation
mitigation programs (MM 3.3/2.1, MM 3.3/3.0, and MM 3.3/4.0) and shall require all
future developments to participate in regional transportation mitigation programs
(MM 3.3/5.0) as determined by regional transportation studies.
The Project shall contribute a proportionate share to planned ultimate improvements
at the I-580/I-680 interchange as implemented by Caltrans. The assessed costs of
freeway interchange improvements shall include the costs of revised freeway ramp
connections to Dublin and the associated mitigation on adjacent local streets. (MM
3.3/4.0)
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the construction of auxiliary
lanes on I-580 east of Airway Boulevard as implemented by Caltrans. (MM 3.3/5.0)
Intersection Operations. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the Specific Plan project
would have residual significant and unavoidable impacts at the following intersections under
Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout scenarios:
Santa Rita Road with the I-580 eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I) (#18) 4
Hacienda Drive with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/M) (#10)
Tassajara Road with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/M) (#16)
Upon certification of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (City Council Resolution No. 53-93) for these significant and unavoidable
impacts.
The EIR further concluded that the significant impacts related to the following intersections
would be reduced to level of insignificance under Year 2010 and/or Cumulative Buildout
scenarios:
Dougherty Road with Dublin Boulevard (IM 3.3/F) (#2)
Hacienda Drive with the I-580 eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/G) (#13)
Tassajara Road with the I-580 westbound ramps (IM 3.3/H) (#17)
4 The intersection numbers of the Supplemental EIR are provided for reference if applicable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 59
Airway Boulevard with Dublin Boulevard/North Canyons Parkway (IM 3.3/J)
Airway Boulevard with the I-580 westbound ramps (IM 3.3/K)
Tassajara Road with Fallon Road (IM 3.3/N)
Tassajara Road with Gleason Road (IM 3.3/N)
Tassajara Road with the Transit Spine (IM 3.3/N)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on intersection operations:
The Project shall contribute a proportionate share towards the costs of the
improvements as determined by a regional transportation study. (MM 3.3/6.0, MM
3.3/7.0, MM 3.3/9.0, MM 3.3/10.0, MM 3.3/11.0, MM 3.3/12.0, MM3.3/14.0 )
Transit. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the significant impacts related to introduction of
significant development in an area not served by public transit would be reduced to level of
insignificance. (IM 3.3/O)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on transit:
The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the capital and operating costs
of transit service extensions. (IM 3.3/15.2)
Pedestrians and Bicycles. The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the potentially significant
impact related to street crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists would be reduced to level of
insignificance. (IM 3.3/P)
The following measures were adopted to alleviate impacts on street crossing for pedestrians and
bicyclists:
Provide a Class I paved bicycle/pedestrian path parallel to Tassajara Creek. (IM
3.3/16.0)
Locate pedestrian and bicycle paths so that their crossings of major arterial streets
coincide with signalized street intersections, provide a signalized pedestrian and
bicycle crossing of the major street. (IM 3.3/16.1)
IKEA SEIR. This Supplemental EIR identified the following supplemental impacts and contained
the following the supplemental mitigation measures.
• Supplemental Impact TRA-1 found a potentially significant supplemental impact at key
intersections near the project site, including the Martinelli Way/Hacienda Drive
intersection, the I-580 eastbound off-ramps/Hacienda Drive intersection, the I-580
westbound ramps/Hacienda Drive intersection and the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty
Road intersection. With construction of future roadway improvements included in the
Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Budget,
these impacts were found to be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 60
• Supplemental Impact TRA-2 identified cumulative impacts at study area intersections,
which are identified above. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2
required payment of fair share fees to fund the construction of a southbound-to-
westbound right-turn lane at the Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road intersection reduced this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Supplemental Impact TRA-3 found that project related trips would add more vehicles to
already congested local freeway segments. Mitigation for this impact was found to be
infeasible since freeway improvements are not under the jurisdiction of the City of
Dublin, although the project developer was required to pay Tri-Valley Transportation
Development fees, of which a portion is directed toward freeway improvements.
The current project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures from previous
CEQA documents
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This supplemental analysis is intended to identify changes in impacts and mitigation measures
due to the land use modifications and other changes. The methodologies and approach are
described below.
Analysis Methodology. Level of service is a qualitative measure that describes operational
conditions as they relate to the traffic stream and perceptions by motorists and passengers. The
level of service generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel
time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The
operational levels of service (LOS) are given letter designations from “A” to “F,” with “A”
representing the best operating conditions (free-flow) and “F” the worst (severely congested flow
with high delays). Intersections generally are the capacity-controlling locations with respect to
traffic operations on arterial and collector streets.
Signalized Intersections. Signalized intersection analyses were conducted using the operational
methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2000, Chapters 10 and 16). It was conducted using Synchro analysis software
tool. The HCM procedure calculates an average controlled delay per vehicle at a signalized
intersection, and assigns a level of service designation based upon the delay. Delay is a complex
measure and is dependent upon a number of variables, including the number of vehicles in the
traffic stream. It is also dependent on the quality of signal progression, the signal cycle length,
and the “green” ratio for each approach or lane group. Table 4.2-2 provides descriptions of the
level of service and the corresponding ranges of delays for signalized intersections.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 61
Table 4.2-2. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition
Level of
Service Description of Traffic Conditions
Average Delay
Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Free flowing. Most vehicles do not have to stop. 10.0
B Minimal delays. Some vehicles have to stop, although waits are not
bothersome. >10.0 and 20.0
C Acceptable delays. Significant numbers of vehicles have to stop because of
steady, high traffic volumes. Still, many pass without stopping. >20.0 and 35.0
D
Tolerable delays. Many vehicles have to stop. Drivers are aware of heavier
traffic. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light. Queues begin
to form, often on more than one approach.
>35.0 and 55.0
E Significant delays. Cars may have to wait through more than one red light.
Long queues form, sometimes on several approaches. >55.0 and 80.0
F
Excessive delays. Intersection is jammed. Many cars have to wait through
more than one red light, or more than 60 seconds. Traffic may back up into
“up-stream” intersections.
>80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Queues. Queue analyses were conducted for 95th percentile left-turn queues using Synchro
analysis software tool. The 95th percentile queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th
percentile traffic volumes. This condition is not typically experienced by an average driver.
When multiple lanes are provided, the queue length for the lane with the highest queue was
reported.
Metropolitan Transportation System Arterial and Freeway Segments. Levels of service for
roadway segments analyzed using the Florida Department of Transportation level of service
methodology, which provides a planning level analysis based on Transportation Research
Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. As a planning level analysis, the level of service is
based on forecasts of traffic and assumptions for roadway and signalization control conditions,
such as facility type (freeway, and arterial classification), speeds, capacity and number of lanes.
The traffic forecasts for the MTS analysis were estimated based on the latest Alameda
Countywide Travel Demand Model. Trips generated by land use on the project site assumed in
the 2020 and 2035 models were first removed from the MTS arterial and freeway segments; then
volumes generated by the proposed project were added to derive the estimated volumes on the
segments. The removal and addition of the trips generated by the project site on MTS arterial and
freeway segments was perform using Traffix software.
Routes of Regional Significance Arterial Segments. Arterial level of service was conducted for
Routes of Regional Significance based on methodology outlined in the Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2000, Chapter 15) using Synchro
software tool. The HCM procedure calculates an average through-vehicle travel speed for the
arterial segment and assigns a level of service designation based upon the speed. The level of
service criteria is shown in Table 4.2-3.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 62
Table 4.2-3. Arterial Level of Service Definition
Urban Street Class
I II III IV
Typical Free Flow
Speed 50 mi/hr 40 mi/hr 35 mi/hr 30 mi/hr
Level of Service Average Travel Speed (miles/hr)
A >42 >35 >30 >25
B >34-42 >28-35 >24-30 >19-25
C >27-34 >22-28 >18-24 >13-19
D >21-27 >17-22 >14-18 >9-13
E >16-21 >13-17 >10+14 >7-9
F <= 16 <= 13 <= 10 <= 7
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Analysis Approach. Transportation impact analysis was performed for Existing conditions,
Short-Term (Year 2020) Cumulative conditions, and Long-Term (Year 2035) Cumulative
conditions. Full development of the proposed project is assumed to occur under each project
scenario. The analysis primarily built upon a set of Synchro traffic analysis files prepared for The
Village development by TJKM Consultants in August 2013 and the updated City of Dublin’s
Citywide Travel Demand Model files prepared for the Dublin Crossing development by Hexagon
Transportation Consultants, Inc. The Synchro files contain intersection volume and lane
geometry data used in The Village project analysis for the Existing, Short-Term Cumulative, and
Long-Term Cumulative conditions and the model files contain travel demand forecasting runs
for Year 2011 base year, Year 2020 and Year 2035 future years. The analysis approach is
detailed below.
Existing Conditions. The existing volumes and lane geometries were primarily compiled from
The Village project’s Synchro files and the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report (Dublin Crossing DEIR). Peak hour turning movement volumes for the Glynnis
Rose Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection was collected for this study. All peak hour
volumes for the study intersections were collected in 2012 and 2013.
The new external trips generated by the proposed project were distributed based on the select
zone analysis and assigned onto the roadway network using Traffix software. The project trips at
each of the study intersections were then added to existing volumes to derive the intersection
volumes for the Existing plus Project scenario. The existing lane geometries and intersection
turning movement volumes for the Existing No Project scenario and the Existing plus Project
scenario are provided in Appendix B (See SEIR Appendix 8.6).
Short-Term Cumulative (Year 2020) Conditions. For the 22 study intersections that are included
in The Village project, the volumes and lane geometries of the Short-Term Cumulative plus The
Village project scenario are assumed to be the same as those of the Short-Term Cumulative No
Project scenario of the proposed project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 63
For the remaining three intersections, the 2020 No Project volumes were developed by adding
The Village project trips to the future background volumes. The future background volumes
were based on the citywide model as applied in the Dublin Crossing EIR.
The proposed project trips were added to the Short-Term Cumulative No Project volumes to
derive the intersection volumes for the Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
The following improvements are assumed in the analysis under Short-Term Cumulative
conditions:
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Roadway Improvements:
I-580 westbound: Addition of a westbound auxiliary lane along I-580 between Fallon
Road and Tassajara Road
I-580 westbound: Addition of a westbound HOV/Express lane along I-580 between
Greenville Road and San Ramon Road
Dublin Crossing project5:
Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway/D Street intersection (#7)6: Construct a
separate left turn lane and a shared through-right lane on southbound D Street/Iron Horse
Parkway, and a westbound right turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane (within the
existing median) on Dublin Boulevard, along with the necessary signal modifications to
accommodate the new north leg of the intersection
Arnold Road and Central Parkway intersection (#19): Construct a separate left turn lane
and a shared through-right lane on eastbound Central Parkway, and a northbound left turn
lane on Arnold Road, along with the necessary signal modifications to accommodate the
new west leg of the intersection.
The Village project7:
Martinelli Way and Project Driveway intersection (#23): Construct a new north leg at
Martinelli Way between Arnold Road and Hacienda Drive as The Village project’s south
project access driveway. The project would also make the necessary signal modifications
to accommodate the new southbound, eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn
movements.
5 These improvements would be constructed as a part of the Dublin Crossing project by Year 2020. If the Dublin
Crossing project is not constructed by Year 2020, the projected volumes at the intersections would be reduced and
the improvements would likely not be required since these improvements are project-specific and would not be
needed without the project. In addition, The Green project would not add traffic to those movements, e.g., eastbound
left and westbound right on Dublin Boulevard, that provide access to the Dublin Crossing project.
6 The intersection numbers of the Supplemental EIR are provided for reference if applicable.
7 These improvements would be constructed as a part of The Village project by Year 2020. If The Village project is
not constructed by Year 2020, these improvements, which provide access to The Village, would not be needed.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 64
The lane geometries and intersection turning movement volumes for the Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario and the Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario are provided in
Appendix B of Appendix 8.6.
Long-Term Cumulative (Year 2035) Conditions. For the 22 study intersections that are included
in The Village project, the volumes and lane geometries of the Long-Term Cumulative plus The
Village project scenario are assumed to be the same as those of the Long-Term Cumulative No
Project scenario of the proposed project.
For the remaining three intersections, the 2035 No Project volumes were developed by adding
The Village project trips to the future background volumes. The future background volumes
were based on the citywide model as applied in the Dublin Crossing EIR.
The proposed project trips were added to the Long-Term Cumulative No Project volumes to
derive the intersection volumes for the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
An additional step was required to estimate the intersection volumes for the Long-Term
Cumulative plus Project scenario. As discussed under the Trip Generation section, the city traffic
model assumed land uses on the project site in 2035. Trips generated by the assumed land uses
were removed first before the trips generated by the proposed project were added to the study
intersections. This resulted in a net change in vehicle trips due to the proposed project relative to
the previously assumed land use at the site.
In addition to those identified under Short-Term Cumulative conditions, the following
improvements are assumed under Long-Term Cumulative conditions:
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Roadway Improvements:
Tassajara Road: Widening of Tassajara Road to six lanes between Fallon Road and
Dublin Boulevard
Tassajara Road: Widening of Tassajara Road to eight lanes between Dublin
Boulevard and I-580 westbound ramps
Dublin Boulevard : Dublin Boulevard six lane extension, from Fallon Road to Airway
Boulevard
Arnold Road: Widening Arnold Road to four lanes from Dublin Blvd to Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive: Widening Hacienda Drive to six lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Central Parkway
Hacienda Drive: Widening Hacienda Drive to four lanes from Central Parkway to
Gleason Road
Scarlett Drive: Extend/Widen Scarlett Drive to four lanes from Dublin Boulevard to
Dougherty Road
City of Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program – Intersection Improvements:
Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive (#1): Adding one southbound through lane and
converting the existing northbound right-turn lane to a shared through-right turn lane on
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 65
Dougherty Road; and adding two westbound right-turn lanes and converting the existing
shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5): Constructing two southbound left-turn lanes
and one shared through-right lane for the new Scarlett Drive extension; converting the
existing northbound right-turn lane to a shared through-right lane on Scarlett Drive; and
adding an exclusive westbound right-turn lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8): Adding a southbound right turn lane and
converting the existing shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane on
Arnold Road; and adding an eastbound left turn lane on Dublin Boulevard and
corresponding northbound receiving lane.
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10): Converting an existing northbound right-
turn lane to a through lane on Hacienda Drive; and adding a westbound right turn lane
and converting the existing shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through lane on
Dublin Boulevard
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way/Hacienda Crossings (#11): Removing the existing
raised delineators to allow for three northbound left-turn lanes on Hacienda Drive
Hacienda Drive and Central Parkway (#20): Adding a southbound through lane;
converting the existing northbound shared through-right turn lane to an exclusive through
lane; and adding a northbound right-turn trap lane from the Dublin Boulevard intersection
Hacienda Drive and I-580 EB Ramps (#13): Adding a northbound through lane on
Hacienda Drive and an additional eastbound left-turn lane on the I-580 eastbound off-
ramp
Tassajara Road and Dublin Boulevard(#16): Adding two northbound through lanes on
Tassajara Road, an eastbound through lane on Dublin Boulevard, and a westbound right
turn lane and a through lane; and converting the existing shared through-right turn lane a
through lane
Tassajara Road and I-580 WB Ramps (#17): Adding a northbound through lane on
Tassajara Road.
City of Pleasanton Intersection Improvements:
Santa Rita Road and I-580 EB Ramps (#18): Adding a southbound left-turn lane on Santa
Rita Road
The future lane geometries and intersection turning movement volumes for the Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario and the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenario are
presented in Appendix B (see SEIR Appendix 8.6).
Project Characteristics. The proposed project is a mixed-use development located at the
southwest quadrant of the Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way intersection. Its land uses are
different from those assumed on the project site in the Eastern Dublin EIR. For the purpose of
this analysis, the proposed project consists of 35,000 square feet of restaurant space, 5,000
square feet of other retail space, 50 single family detached dwelling units, 260 townhouse units,
and 90 condominium units (400 units total). The traffic impacts of this product mix are more
intensive than the impacts of 400 condominium and townhome units, so although the product
type mix changed to not include any single family detached dwelling units, the analysis was not
changed because it was known that impacts identified would be “worst case” scenario. The
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 66
project site also contains 2.25 acres of open plaza and green space that would serve visitors and
residents of the project. One vehicular access is provided on Martinelli Drive aligned with the
future access of The Village development. Another vehicular driveway is provided on Arnold
Drive. The turning movement at this secondary access is assumed to be restricted to right turns
only.
Project Trip Generation. The trip generation of the proposed project is based upon information
compiled by Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the latest Trip Generation Manual and
User’s Guide and Handbook (9th Edition). It is assumed all 35,000 square-feet of restaurant
space would comprise of High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurants (ITE Code 932). This
assumption yields higher trip generation than other types of non-fast food restaurants. Therefore,
this analysis can accommodate a reasonable mix of restaurants that would ultimately be
developed. The project would generate 560 trips during the AM peak hour and 405 trips during
the PM peak hour as presented in Table 4.2-4.
Table 4.2-4. Project Trip Generation
Land Use
Category Amount ITE Code Weekday^ AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rate
Restaurants* 932 127.15 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85
Other Retail 820 193.80 3.10 1.90 5.00 7.78 8.42 16.20
Condo/Townhouse 230 5.47 0.07 0.33 0.40 0.32 0.16 0.48
Single Family Detached 210 11.10 0.23 0.68 0.90 0.71 0.41 1.12
Trip Generation
Restaurants* 21.0 ksf 932 2,670 125 102 227 124 83 207
Restaurants* 14.0 ksf 932 1,780 83 68 151 83 55 138
Other Retail 5.0 ksf 820 969 16 10 25 39 42 81
Condo/Townhouse 350 du 230 1,913 24 117 141 113 55 168
Single Family 50 du 210 555 11 34 45 35 21 56
Total Project Trips 7,887 259 331 589 394 256 650
Internal Trip Reduction -1,084 -44 -44 -87
Walk Trip to BART Reduction (5%) -340 -13 -17 -29 -18 -11 -28
New External Trips before Pass-by Reduction 6,463 246 314 560 333 201 535
Pass-By Trips
High Turn Over Restaurant
(5% Weekday; 35% PM) -200 -54 -54 -108
Other Retail (5% Weekday; 30% PM) -44 -11 -11 -22
New External Trips 6,219 246 314 560 267 136 405
Approved Use Trips per Year 2035 Dublin
Model 8,075 184 71 255 228 307 535
Year 2035 Cumulative Net Additional Trips -1,856 62 243 305 39 -171 -130
Note:
* Based on "High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant" land use category from ITE
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition and User's Guide and Handbook
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 67
There are two line items in the table for restaurants representing the two distinct restaurant
spaces. It is assumed that each space would contain a number of different restaurants. The trip
generation was calculated using either weighted average rate or regression equation based on
recommended procedures in the Trip Generation Handbook. Specifically, trip generation for the
restaurant land use were based on average rates; while trip generation for other retail use (ITE
820 Shopping Center), condominiums and townhouses (ITE 230 Residential Condominium/
Townhouse) and single family homes (ITE 210 Single-Family Detached Housing) were
calculated using equations. Regardless of the use of rates or equations, the resulting trip
generation rates are presented in Table 4.2-4.
An adjustment was made to account for internal trips between retail, which includes restaurants
and other retail, and residential land uses within the project site. The internal trip adjustment was
performed using procedures recommended by ITE for multi-use developments. Internal trips are
trips that would occur between different land uses on the same site without accessing the external
street system. Therefore, this analysis assumes direct access would be provided between the
residential and commercial uses. While it is reasonable to assume a small number of internal
trips would occur during the AM peak hour, ITE does not provide any guidance. The exclusion
of AM peak hour internal trip adjustments results in a conservative analysis. Further details on
the internal trip calculations may be found in Appendix A of Appendix 8.6.
Due to the project site’s close proximity to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station, adjustments
were made to account for walk trips between the project and the station. Based upon City staff’s
local knowledge, a five-percent trip reduction was assumed for all land use types during all time
periods.
After adjusting for internal trips and BART walk trips, adjustments were made to account for
pass-by trips to the restaurant establishments and other retail land uses. Pass-by trips are trips
that are already in the existing traffic stream that passes by the site and that would be attracted to
the project when it is completed. These trips are included in the total count of traffic generated
by the project and are included in the project driveway volumes, but are not included as new trips
at intersections outside of the influence of the project driveways. Since pass-by vehicles on
Hacienda Drive have to divert onto Martinelli Way to access the project, the Hacienda Drive and
Martinelli Way intersection is considered to be within the influence of the project driveways and
is affected by pass-by trips.
The amount of a project's pass-by trips varies by type of land uses and the magnitude of existing
traffic on the adjacent streets. The pass-by trips assumptions were derived from guidelines in
ITE’s Trip Generation Manual User’s Guide and Handbook. However, in collaboration with the
City, modifications were made to reflect local conditions. Both modifications, from ITE average
of 43 percent to 35 percent for restaurants and from 34 percent to 30 percent for other retail uses,
were downward reductions; reflecting a consistently conservative approach in this analysis.
Table 4.2- indicates the number of trips projected to be generated by land uses assumed on the
project site by Year 2035 in the Dublin Citywide Travel Demand Model. The assumed land uses
primarily consist of office and commercial uses. The net difference in trips that would be
generated by the proposed project is also provided. The proposed project would result in net
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 68
reductions of daily and PM peak hour trips but a net increase of AM peak hour trips under the
Long Term Cumulative conditions.
Project Trip Distribution. The distribution of trips associated with the project site was derived
from the Dublin Citywide travel demand model as well as trip distribution information for The
Village at Dublin (also known as Site 16A, “Persimmon Place”) project8, a 167,200-square-foot
retail shopping center located in the southwest quadrant of the Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive
intersection.
To estimate the trip distribution for retail and service uses including restaurants, the traffic
analysis zone within which the project is located was isolated and its peak hour trips were
assigned to the network using Year 2035 future year model. From this select zone assignment,
the distributions of trips for retail/service uses in both AM and PM peak hours were estimated.
The distribution percentages were then compared to those of The Village project and adjusted
based on project land use, the study area, and comments from City staff.
To estimate the trip distribution for residential land use, the same select zone process was
followed for the zone at the northeast corner of Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard. This zone
serves as a proxy for the project site as it is the nearest zone where residential housing is the
primary use. The estimated trip distribution percentages for residential and retail/service uses to
and from selected gateways are graphically presented in Exhibit 4.2-2 and shown in Table 4.2-5
below.
Table 4.2-5. Project Trip Distribution
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
To/From
Residential
(%)
Retail/
Service
(%)
Residential
(%)
Retail/
Service
(%)
Interstate 580 west of Dougherty/Hopyard Interchange 25 5 20 5
Interstate 580 east of Santa Rita/Tassajara Interchange 15 10 11 10
Dublin Blvd. west of Dougherty Rd. 20 10 13 12
Dublin Blvd. east of Tassajara Rd. 1 10 2 12
Hacienda Dr. north of Central Pkwy. 1 3 3 3
Hacienda Dr south of Owens Dr 9 10 10 10
Tassajara Rd north of Central Pkwy 1 7 1 6
Santa Rita Rd south of Pimlico Dr 10 13 10 10
Central Pkwy east of Tassajara Rd 3 3 5 2
Dougherty Rd north of Scarlett Dr 4 10 5 10
Owens Dr southeast of Hacienda Dr 5 12 12 12
Martinelli Wy west of Arnold Rd 5 4 5 5
Hacienda Crossing 1 3 3 3
Total 100 100 100 100
8 TJKM Consultants, “Trip Generation and Distribution for Traffic Impact Study of the Proposed Retail Development at Site
16A,” Technical memorandum to Jerry Haag. January 23, 2013.
The Green Draft Supplimental EIR December 2013
¯
Figure4.4-2
H:\projfile\13410 - Dublin Greens Supplemental EIR\GIS\TripDistribution.mxd - bkorporaal - 4:12 PM
12/23/2013
Coordinate System: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Trip DistributionThe GreenDublin, California
SITE
Dublin Blvd Dublin Blvd
Arnold Rd
Arnold Rd
Martinelli Way
Dougherty Blvd
Scarlett Dr
Owens Dr
Hacienda Crossing
Central Pkwy
Central Pkwy
Tassajara
Rd
Hacienda Dr
Owens Dr
Dublin Blvd
4% 10%(5%) (10%)3% (5%)
3% (2%)
5% (5%)
4% (5%)
1% (3%)
3% (3%)
Hacienda Dr
1% 7%(1%) (6%)1% 3%(3%) (3%)
1% (2%)
10% (12%)
25% (20%)
5% (5%)15% (11%)
10% (10%)§¨¦I-580 §¨¦I-580
Legend
Residential AM% (PM%)
Retail/Services AM% (PM%)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 70
Project Trip Assignment. Project trips were assigned onto the roadway network based on
assumed project access points, shortest paths, and availability of alternate paths. The assignments
were modified for the Long Term Cumulative scenario to account for new roadways projected to
be completed by Year 2035 as described under the Analysis Approach section.
The intersection turning movement volumes generated by the project are provided in Part B of
SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Standards of Significance. In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to
determine whether they will result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. In this
analysis, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would have effects described
below. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify specific standards for queuing, Routes of
Regional Significance, public transit, pedestrian circulation, bicycle facilities and Complete
Street Policy. Further, the standards for the remaining criteria have also been modified. The
proposed project would have a significant supplemental impact if the following impacts have the
potential to occur but were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, or are substantially more
severe than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR requiring additional mitigations.
City of Dublin Intersections. Project impact is considered to be significant if:
The project traffic causes the intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable LOS
D or better under no project conditions to LOS E or worse under project conditions; or
If the intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold (i.e. at LOS E or
LOS F) under no project conditions and the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips to the
intersection.
City of Pleasanton Intersections. Project impact is considered to be significant if:
The project traffic causes the intersection operations to degrade from an acceptable LOS
D or better under no project conditions to LOS E or worse under project conditions; or
If the intersection is already operating below an acceptable threshold (i.e. at LOS E or
LOS F) under no project conditions, the project adds 10 or more peak hour trips to the
intersection.
The City of Pleasanton has identified a few exceptions to the LOS standard for the City of
Pleasanton gateway intersections9. These intersections may have a LOS below LOS D if there is
no reasonable mitigation possible or if the necessary mitigation conflict with other goals and
policies of the City of Pleasanton.
Queuing. Project impact would be considered significant if:
9 The following study intersections are included as Pleasanton’s gateway intersections: I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard
Road, I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty/Hopyard Road; I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr; I-580 Eastbound
Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr; I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara/Santa Rita Rd; I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita
Rd/Pimlico Drive; and Ownes Drive & Hacienda Dr.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 71
For the study intersections operating at unacceptable level of service, or at the upper
portion of the LOS D delay range (average intersection delay of 45 to 55 seconds):
o the project traffic causes the 95th percentile queue in a left turn pocket to extend
beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet or more (i.e., the length of one vehicle) into
adjacent traffic lanes that operate (i.e., move) separately from the left turn lane; or
o If the 95th percentile queue already exceeds that turn pocket length under no
project conditions, the project traffic lengthens the queue by 25 feet or more.
MTS Arterial and Freeway Segments. Project impact would be considered significant if:
The project traffic cause a MTS network segment to fall from an acceptable LOS E
(roadway segment, freeway segment, or freeway ramp v/c ratio of 0.99 or less) under no
project conditions to an unacceptable LOS F (v/c of 1.00 or more); or,
If a segment is already operating at LOS F in the No Project case, the v/c ratio increases
by more than 0.02 (for example, from 1.03 to 1.06).
Routes of Regional Significance. Project impact would be significant if:
The project traffic causes an arterial segment to degrade below LOS D based on HCM
2000 Methodology during a peak hour; or
If an arterial were already at LOS E or worse, the project would cause the
volume/capacity ratio to increase by 0.02 or more.
Public Transit. Project impact would be significant if:
The demand for public transit service increases above that which local transit operators or
agencies could accommodate; or
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation; or
The project disrupts existing transit service or does not provide amenities necessary to
accommodate transit demand.
Bicycle Facilities. Project impact would be significant if:
The project disrupts existing bicycle facilities or interferes with planned bicycle facilities,
which includes failure to dedicate right-of-way for planned on- and off-street bicycle
facilities included in an adopted Bicycle Master Plan or to contribute toward construction
of planned bicycle facilities along the project’s frontages; or
The project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans,
guidelines, policies or standards; or, a project fails to provide on-site parking for bicycles
as required by the City’s municipal codes.
Pedestrian Circulation. Project impact would be significant if:
The project conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting pedestrians.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 72
Complete Streets Policy. Project impact would be significant if:
The project conflicts with the City of Dublin’s Complete Streets Policy, including public
transit and pedestrian and bicycle circulation accommodations.
Traffic Safety. Project impact would be significant if:
The project includes a project design feature, such as a sharp curve or potentially
hazardous intersection that would not be consistent with City of Dublin engineering
design standards or standards published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) or Caltrans.
Supplemental Impacts to Intersections. Twenty-five signalized intersections in the project
vicinity were selected for analysis. Nine of these intersections were analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.10 The results of the analysis under Existing, Short-Term Cumulative and Long-Term
Cumulative conditions are presented in this section. Detailed worksheets are included in
Appendix C of SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Existing Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Existing and Existing plus
Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-6. The results indicate that all but one of the study
intersections would operate within acceptable LOS standards during both peak hours with the
addition of project traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection would degrade to
substandard level in the AM peak hour.
With the addition of project traffic, the average delays at some intersections are lower than those
under the No Project scenario. The primary reason for such occurrences is that the HCM
methodology used for this operations analysis is based on average delay per vehicle at the
intersection. Therefore, under certain circumstances, while the total volume increases, the
additional vehicles at a particular movement or movements that experience less delay would
result in a lower intersection average delay per vehicle. For example, if the project adds trips to a
through movement that has lower delay than most of the other traffic movements, the overall
intersection average delay would decrease.
Table 4.2-6. Intersection Level of Services - Existing Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 8.9 A 9.1 A
PM 11.2 B 11.6 B
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 39.1 D 37.6 D
PM 42.6 D 43.7 D
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty Rd^ AM 10.9 B 10.9 B
10 Intersections studied in both the Eastern Dublin EIR and The Green Draft SEIR are: Dougherty Rd/Dublin Blvd (#2),
Dougherty Rd/I-580 westbound ramps (#3), Hopyard Rd/I-580 eastbound ramps (#4), Hacienda Dr/Dublin Blvd (#10), Hacienda
Dr/I-580 Westbound off-ramp (#12), Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound off-ramp (#13), Tassajara Rd/Dublin Blvd (#16),
Tassajara Rd/I-580 westbound off ramp (#17), and Tassajara Rd/I-580 eastbound off ramp (#18).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 73
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
PM 14.9 B 15.0 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 46.9 D 46.9 D
PM 19.2 B 19.2 B
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 4.7 A 4.8 A
PM 10.3 B 10.5 B
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 16.7 B 16.3 B
PM 10.6 B 11.1 B
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 9.3 A 9.6 A
PM 10.1 B 9.8 A
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 48.5 D 55.8 E
PM 17.6 B 20.6 C
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 1.5 A 1.4 A
PM 2.0 A 2.3 A
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 35.3 D 36.7 D
PM 29.2 C 30.0 C
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 14.0 B 18.4 B
PM 24.4 C 26.2 C
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 7.0 A 7.2 A
PM 8.5 A 9.5 A
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 14.6 B 14.8 B
PM 12.0 B 13.0 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 18.0 B 17.7 B
PM 24.1 C 24.4 C
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 10.4 B 9.9 A
PM 14.4 B 14.1 B
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 27.0 C 27.4 C
PM 32.7 C 33.5 C
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 9.0 A 9.0 A
PM 9.4 A 9.5 A
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 27.4 C 27.3 C
PM 34.8 C 34.7 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 4.3 A 4.3 A
PM 4.6 A 4.7 A
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 15.3 B 16.7 B
PM 15.8 B 17.3 B
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 9.1 A 8.8 A
PM 6.7 A 6.8 A
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 12.3 B 12.4 B
PM 11.4 B 11.4 B
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 74
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Existing no
Proj Existing plus Proj
Delay LOS Delay LOS
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM Future
Intersection
13.0 B
PM 29.1 C
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 18.3 B 18.9 B
PM 18.7 B 19.0 B
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 12.8 B 14.2 B
PM 26.3 C 28.0 C
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = level of service
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2013.
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Intersection impact. Construction of the project would result in
an impact at the intersection identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-1 (impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd. intersection). The
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E
with the addition of project trips during the AM peak hour under Existing conditions
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-1 (impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd.
intersection). The following measures shall be required to improve the level of service to
within acceptable standard:
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long taper area;
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane;
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Upon implementation of the, the operations would improve to LOS D in the AM peak hour and
LOS B in the PM peak hour and the project impact would be less-than-significant. The required
improvements are identified in the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program for
implementation in 2035, but would be required earlier due to this project. Therefore, the project
shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements. Since the improvement is
required prior to 2035, the project would pay for the full cost of this improvement prior to the
issuance of the first building permit and the costs of the improvement would be credited towards
the TIF payment requirement for the development.
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Short-Term
Cumulative and Short-Term Cumulative plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-7.
The results indicate that all study intersections in the AM peak hour and all but three
intersections in the PM peak hour would operate within acceptable LOS standards under Short-
Term Cumulative plus Project scenario.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 75
Table 4.2-7. Intersection Level of Services – Short-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Short-Term no
Proj
Short-Term
plus Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 23.3 C 23.8 C
PM 24.6 C 25.3 C
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 43.0 D 44.1 D
PM 56.0 E 58.0 E 133
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty
Rd^
AM 11.5 B 11.5 B
PM 13.2 B 13.2 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 23.8 C 23.8 C
PM 33.4 C 33.6 C
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 12.8 B 13.2 B
PM 14.9 B 15.5 B
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 31.3 C 31.4 C
PM 23.0 C 23.5 C
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 16.3 B 15.8 B
PM 22.2 C 23.0 C
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 41.0 D 49.9 D
PM 47.4 D 48.9 D
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 8.9 A 9.3 A
PM 9.9 A 9.9 A
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 26.7 C 27.0 C
PM 54.7 D 62.4 E
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 19.8 B 22.4 C
PM 31.5 C 34.5 C
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 7.1 A 7.3 A
PM 6.4 A 6.9 A
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 13.0 B 13.2 B
PM 12.8 B 13.6 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 13.3 B 13.3 B
PM 21.3 C 21.2 C
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 10.7 B 10.7 B
PM 18.8 B 18.7 B
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 41.3 D 41.9 D
PM 61.2 E 62.6 E 71
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 10.0 A 10.0 B
PM 13.4 B 13.5 B
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 30.7 C 31.1 C
PM 30.6 C 31.0 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 7.8 A 7.8 A
PM 6.3 A 6.3 A
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 76
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Short-Term no
Proj
Short-Term
plus Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 19.1 B 19.4 B
PM 19.2 B 20.2 C
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 10.4 B 10.2 B
PM 9.0 A 8.8 A
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 19.2 B 19.7 B
PM 27.3 C 27.8 C
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM 13.1 B 13.3 B
PM 12.5 B 15.1 B
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 14.8 B 14.6 B
PM 24.6 C 24.7 C
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 14.0 B 14.2 B
PM 46.9 D 47.9 D
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = Level of service.
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Bold font denotes sub-standard operations
Highlight indicates significant impact
Source: Kittelson & Associates, 2013.
The Dublin Boulevard intersections of Dougherty Road (#2) and Tassajara Road (#16) would
already experience sub-standard operations at LOS E without the proposed project. Because the
project would add more than 50 trips to each of these intersections in the PM peak hour, the
project impacts are considered to be cumulatively significant.
Project generated traffic would cause the operations at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) to degrade from LOS D to LOS E in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the
project impact is considered to be significant.
As discussed under the Existing Conditions, the reason why the average delays at some
intersections with the project-added traffic are lower than those under the No Project scenario is
primarily due to the HCM methodology used for the analysis.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of
the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Dougherty
Rd. intersection during the PM peak period). The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
(#2) intersection would operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak
hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed
project would add 50 or more trips to the intersection (significant supplemental impact
remains significant and unavoidable).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 77
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period). The following measures
would be required to improve the level of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two left-turn
lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on
Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding 300-foot long receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-foot
long merging taper area;
c) Provide an overlap signal phasing for the westbound right-turn movement and
prohibit conflicting southbound U-turn movement; and
d) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Upon implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would
improve to LOS D in both peak hours and the project impact would be less-than-significant.
However, the mitigation measures would require widening of the east leg of the intersection to
accommodate the additional receiving lane. Such widening of Dublin Boulevard might not be
feasible due to right-of-way constraints. Further, it would result in secondary impact to
pedestrians as the longer crossing distance would increase the length of time pedestrians are
exposed to traffic. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires
non-residential projects with 50 or more employees to participate in the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program. As an alternative mitigation measure, the Project
shall prepare a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to encompass both
commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The project developer shall work
with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be approved by the
City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should include, but
not be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for
the project including program development, information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional
transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees
and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The Village” property to
the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels,
511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and
distribute commute alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 78
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F)
of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for
qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per
month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve intersection operations can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of
the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-3 (short-term cumulative impacts at Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr.
intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would degrade
from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions (significant supplemental impact remains significant and
unavoidable).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-3 (short-term cumulative impacts at Dublin
Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). The following measures would be required to improve the
level of service to within an acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two left-turn
lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on
Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-foot long taper
area; and
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
While this intersection is part of the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program, the TIF
improvement would not adequately lessen the project impact.
Upon implementation of the supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would improve to
LOS C in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour and the project impact would be
less-than-significant. However, the mitigation measures would require removal/modification of
the curb extension at the southeast corner of the intersection and relocating the existing bike lane
to accommodate the additional receiving lane, which would adversely impact pedestrians by
increasing the crossing distance and exposure to traffic and bicyclists by increasing conflict at
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 79
downstream driveway. Therefore, this mitigation measure may be infeasible and the project
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve intersection operations can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road Intersection short-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the short-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-4 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Blvd./Tassajara
Rd. intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (#16) intersection would
operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak hour under Short-
Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed project would add 50 or
more trips to the intersection (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-4 (short--term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Tassajara Rd. intersection). The following measures would be required to improve
the level of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes
and two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard; and
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends from Tassajara
Road to Brannigan Street.
Upon implementation of the above supplemental measure, the operation would improve to LOS
D.
The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the City’s Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) program as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard to six through lanes at this
location. The Project shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements. The TIF
fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Upon the payment, the project
impact would be less-than-significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. The intersection level of service results for Long-Term
Cumulative and Long-Term Cumulative plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table 4.2-8.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 80
The results indicate the 12 intersections would operate below acceptable standards under Long-
Term Cumulative No Project and plus Project scenarios. However, the impact at only the Dublin
Boulevard Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection is considered to be cumulatively significant because
the project would add 50 or more trips to this Dublin intersection. Therefore, the impact is not
considered to be significant. This reduction in average intersection delay could be attributed to
two factors. The project would add trips to the southbound through movement, which in general
experiences lower delay than other movements at the intersection. As explained under the
Existing Conditions section, when trips are added to a movement that experience less delay, the
result may be a reduction in the average intersection delay per vehicle. Furthermore, because
trips that were projected to be generated by land uses assumed on the project site by the Citywide
Model were first removed from the roadway network, the net traffic volume on the southbound
left-turn movement with the addition of the project is lower than that of the No Project scenario.
Because this movement would require the most green time from the traffic signal, any volume
reduction would again reduce the average intersection delay.
Table 4.2-8. Intersection Level of Services – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Long-Term no
Proj
Long-Term plus
Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Dougherty Rd & Scarlett Dr AM 28.8 C 29.3 C
PM 112.1 F 113.8 F 15
2 Dougherty Rd & Dublin Blvd AM 48.7 D 50.4 D
PM 77.3 E 78.4 E 15
3 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Dougherty
Rd^
AM 12.4 B 12.4 B
PM 14.3 B 14.3 B
4 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hopyard Rd^ AM 34.7 C 34.7 C
PM 21.1 C 21.1 C
5 Dublin Blvd & Scarlett Dr AM 79.0 E 82.9 F 82
PM 76.7 E 78.5 E 26
6 Dublin Blvd & Camp Parks Blvd AM 24.9 C 27.4 C
PM 73.1 E 73.1 E 33
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron Horse Pkwy AM 21.5 C 23.8 C
PM 181.2 F 183.2 F 27
8 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd AM 53.0 D 59.9 E
PM 70.8 E 68.5 E 17
9 Dublin Blvd & Sybase Dr AM 5.1 A 5.1 A
PM 13.2 B 13.2 B
10 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr AM 31.9 C 31.7 C
PM 139.4 F 137.2 F -11
11 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way AM 26.7 C 26.8 C
PM 64.2 E 63.6 E 29
12 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 8.0 A 8.2 A
PM 24.7 C 27.8 C
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 81
No. Intersection
Peak
Period
Long-Term no
Proj
Long-Term plus
Proj
Trips
added
Delay LOS Delay LOS
13 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Hacienda Dr^ AM 13.2 B 13.2 B
PM 17.9 B 18.5 B
14 Dublin Blvd & Hibernia Dr AM 15.9 B 16.1 B
PM 36.8 D 36.1 D
15 Dublin Blvd & Myrtle Dr AM 9.8 A 9.8 A
PM 77.4 E 75.7 E -21
16 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd AM 53.4 D 54.0 D
PM 185.4 F 184.3 F -14
17 I-580 Westbound Off-Ramp & Tassajara Rd^ AM 9.5 A 9.5 A
PM 10.7 B 10.6 B
18 I-580 Eastbound Off-Ramp & Santa Rita Rd^ AM 29.8 C 30.8 C
PM 29.2 C 29.5 C
19 Central Pkwy & Arnold Rd AM 9.4 A 9.4 A
PM 11.1 B 11.1 B
20 Central Pkwy & Hacienda Dr AM 35.1 D 35.5 D
PM 18.0 B 19.2 B
21 Martinelli Way & Arnold Rd AM 9.7 A 9.7 A
PM 12.3 B 12.4 B
22 Central Pkwy & Tassajara Rd AM 24.6 C 24.9 C
PM 35.7 D 36.5 D
23 Martinelli Way & Project Drwy AM 14.1 B 13.9 B
PM 15.1 B 15.9 B
24 Dublin Blvd & Glynnis Rose Dr AM 13.7 B 13.6 B
PM 57.8 E 56.7 E -19
25 Owens Dr & Hacienda Dr^ AM 96.0 F 93.1 F 41
PM 45.1 D 40.8 D
Notes:
^ denotes intersections under City of Pleasanton jurisdictions.
LOS = Level of service.
Delay = Average delay per vehicle in seconds
Bold font denotes sub-standard operations
Highlight and trips more than 50 at Dublin intersections or 10 at Pleasanton intersection indicates significant impact
Further, the operation at the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection (#8) would degrade
from LOS D under No Project scenario to LOS E under plus Project scenario in the AM peak
hour; thereby resulting in a significant impact.
The average delays at some intersections with the project-added traffic are lower than those
under the No Project scenario. In addition to the HCM methodology discussed under Existing
conditions, the reduced delays can also be attributed to the application of the net change in trips
generated by the site to the Year 2035 No Project scenario as a result of the project to obtain the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 82
volumes for the Plus Project scenario. As shown in Table 4.2-4, the project would result in a net
negative trip generation in the PM peak hour under Year 2035 conditions.
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive Intersection long-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time period.
Supplemental Impact TR-5 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin Blvd./Scarlett Dr.
intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection would operate at
LOS E without the proposed project during the AM peak hour under Long-Term
Cumulative conditions and the proposed project would further degrade the operations to
LOS F and add 50 or more trips to the intersection (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-5 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Blvd./Scarlett Dr. intersection). At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive,
there is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the DCSP-
DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended measure to mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to the high rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade separated crossing. The
grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the
traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on
Dublin Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings project has not been environmentally
cleared, nor has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the
feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve
pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a
grade separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project
funding.
A significant impact has been identified at this intersection in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
DEIR. The recommended measure is installation of a grade-separated crossing because of the
large number of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing Dublin Boulevard at this location. A grade
separation would not only minimize conflicts between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles, it
would also allow more green time, that would otherwise be allotted to pedestrian crossing, to be
assigned to through vehicular traffic on Dublin Boulevard.
Although engineering or right of way analysis has not been completed with regards to the
feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve
pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a
grade-separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project
funding.
With the implementation of a grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing, the levels of service
would improve to LOS D during both peak hours under the Long-Term Cumulative plus Project
Conditions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 83
The required mitigation measure for this impact is currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the Project Applicant shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements prior to occupancy of the last building on the project site. Upon payment, the
project impact would be less-than-significant.
In the event that the grade separated crossing improvement is not constructed by year 2035, an
alternative mitigation would be to eliminate the crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection
across Dublin Boulevard, which would also improve the intersection operations to LOS D and
mitigate the project impact to a less-than-significant level. However, this alternative measure is
undesirable as it would require pedestrians and bicyclists from the Iron Horse Trail to cross three
crosswalks rather than one. Therefore, the grade separated crossing is the City’s preferred
mitigation.
Since the grade separation option has not yet received environmental approval, and to ensure that
the impacts are adequately mitigated, the project developer is required to provide their fair-share
contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. The Green’s fair share contribution shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Dublin Boulevard/Arnold Road Intersection long-term cumulative impact. Construction of the
project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-6 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin Blvd./Arnold Rd.
intersection). The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection would degrade
from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the AM peak hour under
Long-Term Cumulative conditions (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-6 (long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Blvd./Arnold Rd. intersection). The following measures would be required to improve the
level of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/ permitted overlap phase
for the southbound right-turn movement and prohibit conflicting eastbound U-turn
movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Upon implementation of the above mitigation measure, the operations would improve to LOS D.
The required mitigation measure for this impact is currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements. The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit. Upon payment, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 84
Supplemental Impacts to Intersection Queuing. Ninety-fifth percentile queuing analysis was
conducted for the left-turn movements of Dublin intersections operating at unacceptable level of
service or at the upper portion of the LOS D delay range. The 95th percentile queue is defined to
be the queue length that has only a five percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis
time period. The results of the analysis are presented in this section. Detailed worksheets are
included in Appendix D.
In some instances, the queue length for a particular movement is shorter under the Plus Project
scenario than the No Project scenario. This is a result of the way 95th percentile queue length is
calculated by the Synchro analysis software tool and does not affect the overall findings. For
example, the eastbound left-turn queue length is decreased by four feet under the Existing plus
Project scenario as compared to the Existing No Project scenario (Table 4.2-9) where the project
would not add any trips to this movement.
Existing Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-9, left-turn queues would exceed turn pocket
capacity at the Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection under both Existing No
Project and Existing plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would not lengthen the
queues by 25 feet or more. Therefore, the project impact is less-than-significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
Table 4.2-9. Queuing Analysis – Existing Conditions
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
8 Dublin Blvd &
Arnold Rd
EBL 240 251 247 No 235 237 No
WBL 360 18 19 No 13 18 No
NBL 160 10 63 No 11 51 No
SBL 175 27 27 No 54 56 No
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-10, left-turn queues would exceed
the length of the turn pockets at all four study intersections under both Short-Term Cumulative
No Project and plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would lengthen the queues by 25
feet or more at only two intersections. The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road (#2) intersection would increase by 32 feet in the PM peak hour and the
westbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would
increase by 27 feet in the AM peak hour and 49 feet in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the project
impacts at these two intersections are considered to be significant.
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road Intersection short-term cumulative queuing impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during
the short-term cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-7 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection). The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road (#2) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 85
without the proposed project during the PM peak hour and the proposed project would
lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-7 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection). Optimization of the traffic signal
phase time would reduce the 95th percentile queue length for the southbound left turn to
371 feet during the PM peak hour. While the queue length would still exceed the turn
pocket storage, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet.
Alternatively, implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 would also reduce the
95th percentile queue length. However, its implementation would require widening of Dublin
Boulevard, which would have right-of-way constraints and impacts to pedestrians; therefore, it is
considered to be infeasible.
The required mitigation measure is currently not included in the City’s Transportation Impact
Fee (TIF) program. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the region,
the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The fair share
contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. Upon payment, the
project impact would be less-than-significant.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 86
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
0
.
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
–
S
h
o
rt
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
No
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Qu
e
u
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
f
t
)
Q
u
e
u
e
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
f
t
)
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
N
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
l
u
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
2
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
R
d
EB
L
2
4
5
3
5
3
5
N
o
1
3
6
1
3
6
N
o
WB
L
5
6
5
1
6
7
1
6
8
N
o
3
0
2
3
0
3
N
o
NB
L
4
9
0
2
5
9
2
5
9
N
o
3
7
7
3
7
7
N
o
SB
L
2
0
5
31
7
3
3
9
No
35
1
38
3
Yes
8
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ar
n
o
l
d
R
d
EB
L
2
4
0
37
5
3
7
6
No
53
9
5
3
3
No
WB
L
3
6
0
1
0
8
1
0
9
N
o
9
9
1
0
1
N
o
NB
L
1
6
0
2
0
7
4
N
o
4
4
7
8
N
o
SB
L
1
7
5
2
6
0
2
6
0
N
o
5
1
0
5
1
0
N
o
10
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
D
r
EB
L
2
5
0
3
6
3
6
N
o
2
3
4
2
3
4
N
o
WB
L
2
5
0
39
8
42
5
Ye
s
22
6
27
5
Yes
NB
L
2
3
5
1
3
1
1
3
1
N
o
61
8
6
1
8
No
SB
L
2
7
0
2
1
2
1
N
o
5
2
5
2
N
o
16
Du
b
l
i
n
B
l
v
d
&
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
R
d
EB
L
2
2
0
9
0
9
3
N
o
48
8
4
9
4
No
WB
L
3
5
5
1
5
3
1
5
4
N
o
1
0
8
1
0
8
N
o
NB
L
3
2
0
4
2
6
4
3
1
N
o
65
9
6
6
4
No
SB
L
2
5
0
1
9
1
9
N
o
5
3
5
3
N
o
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 87
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive Intersection short-term cumulative queuing impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during
the short-term cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-8 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). The westbound left-turn queue at the Dublin
Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity
without the proposed project during the AM peak hour and implementation of the
proposed project would lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions. Further, during the PM peak, the project would cause the queue to
extend beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet when it would be contained under No Project
scenario (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-8 (short-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection). The traffic signal at this intersection
shall be modified to provide additional green time for the westbound left-turn movement
by reducing the green time for the eastbound through movement. This will reduce the
queue length to 420 feet in the AM peak hour and 270 feet in the PM peak hour. While the
queue lengths would still exceed turn pocket capacity, the project traffic would lengthen
the queue by less than 25 feet in the AM peak hour and would cause the queue to extend
beyond the turn pocket by less than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
Alternatively, implementing Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-3 would also reduce the
queue length to within acceptable threshold in the PM peak hour; however, its implementation
would result in adverse effects on pedestrians and bicyclists; thereby not feasible.
The required mitigation measures for these impacts are currently not included in the City’s
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. Because the impacts are caused by cumulative land
use growth in the region, the project developer shall make fair share contributions toward these
improvements. The fair share contributions shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit. Upon payment, the project impacts would be less-than-significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-11, left-turn queues would exceed
the length of the turn pockets at 10 intersections under both Long-Term Cumulative No Project
and plus Project scenarios. However, project traffic would lengthen the queues by 25 feet or
more at only one intersection. The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett Avenue and
Dougherty Road (#1) intersection would increase by 31 feet in the PM peak hour. Therefore, the
project impact at this intersection is considered to be significant.
While the project traffic would cause the northbound left-turn queue at the Martinelli Way and
Hacienda Drive (#11) to extend beyond the turn pocket capacity in the PM peak hour, the queue
would extend beyond the turn pocket by less than 25 feet. Therefore, the project impact at this
intersection is less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 88
Table 4.2-11. Queuing Analysis – Long-Term Cumulative Conditions
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
1 Dougherty Rd &
Scarlett Ave
WBL 100 163 163 No 152 151 No
NBL 135 39 39 No 105 105 No
SBL 100 891 909 No 830 861 Yes
2 Dublin Blvd &
Dougherty Rd
EBL 245 39 39 No 136 136 No
WBL 565 131 129 No 312 314 No
NBL 490 261 261 No 520 520 No
SBL 205 336 336 No 240 240 No
5 Dublin Blvd &
Scarlett Dr
EBL 90 14 13 No 10 10 No
WBL 200 57 57 No 87 80 No
NBL 0 66 66 No 141 141 No
SBL 0 682 693 No 488 506 No
6 Dublin Blvd &
Camp Parks Blvd
EBL 200 209 209 No 177 176 No
WBL 250 56 55 No 127 127 No
NBL 185 269 269 No 196 196 No
SBL 90 109 109 No 225 223 No
7 Dublin Blvd & Iron
Horse Pkwy
EBL 100 44 43 No 182 179 No
WBL 275 108 103 No 123 125 No
NBL 0 254 254 No 1042 1042 No
SBL 0 155 152 No 108 105 No
8 Dublin Blvd &
Arnold Rd
EBL 240 246 246 No 142 139 No
WBL 360 250 252 No 178 181 No
NBL 160 40 102 No 98 97 No
SBL 175 286 286 No 483 483 No
10 Dublin Blvd &
Hacienda Dr
EBL 250 50 50 No 359 359 No
WBL 250 138 144 No 239 231 No
NBL 235 102 102 No 751 751 No
SBL 270 28 28 No 52 52 No
11 Martinelli Way &
Hacienda Dr
EBL 165 48 97 No 396 415 No
WBL 0 80 80 No 241 241 No
NBL 345 226 232 No 317 356 No
SBL 120 17 17 No 55 55 No
15 Dublin Blvd &
Mrtlye Dr
EBL 250 22 21 No 34 34 No
WBL 225 88 88 No 287 287 No
16 Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Rd
EBL 220 174 174 No 1051 1041 No
WBL 355 288 288 No 392 392 No
NBL 320 567 570 No 1123 1117 No
SBL 250 20 20 No 43 43 No
24 Dublin Blvd &
Glynnis Rose Dr
EBL 250 47 47 No 160 160 No
WBL 200 53 53 No 119 119 No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 89
No. Intersection Approach
Storage
Length
(ft)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft)
No
Project
Plus
Project Impact No
Project
Plus
Project Impact
NBL 75 39 39 No 141 139 No
SBL 150 70 70 No 46 46 No
Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Road Intersection long-term cumulative queuing impact. Construction
of the project would result in an impact at the intersection identified below during the long-term
cumulative time frame.
Supplemental Impact TR-9 (long-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd. intersection). The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett
Drive and Dougherty Road (#1) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the
proposed project during the PM peak hour and implementation of the proposed project
would lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Long-Term Cumulative conditions
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-9 (long-term cumulative plus project queuing
impact at the Scarlett Dr./Dougherty Rd. intersection). The traffic signal phasing at this
intersection shall be modified to provide additional green time for the southbound left-turn
movement. This will reduce the queue length by 12 feet to 845 feet and to within acceptable
threshold. Also, because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the region,
the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward this improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Upon payment of the fee and traffic signal modification, the project impact would be less-than-
significant.
Supplemental Impacts to MTS Arterial and Freeway Segment. Because the proposed project
would generate at least 100 PM peak hour trips over existing conditions, a traffic analysis is
required by the CMP to be conducted on MTS arterial and freeway segments for Year 2020 and
Year 2035 conditions using the Countywide Transportation Demand Model.
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. The MTS arterial and freeway segment analysis results for
Year 2020 conditions are presented in Table 4.2-12. The results indicate that all study MTS
arterial and freeway segments would be within acceptable thresholds. Therefore, the project
impacts are not considered to be significant.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. The MTS arterial and freeway segment analysis results for
Year 2035 conditions are presented in Table 4.2-13. The results indicate that, with the exception
of Dublin Boulevard east of Hacienda Drive in the AM peak hour and west of Arnold Road in
the PM peak hour, all other MTS arterial and freeway segments would be within acceptable
thresholds. The two segments of Dublin Boulevard would operate at LOS F under both No
Project and plus Project scenarios. However, the volume-to-capacity ratio would not increase by
0.02 or more. Therefore, the project impacts are not considered to be significant.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 90
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
2
.
M
T
S
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
&
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
s
e
g
m
e
n
ts
s
h
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
la
t
i
v
e
(
y
e
a
r
2
0
2
0
)
Sh
o
r
t
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Sh
o
r
t
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
plus Project
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/CLOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
8,
1
3
8
0.
6
0
C
8,
2
1
1
0.
7
8
C
8,
1
4
9
0.
6
1
C
8,233 0.79 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
6,
4
5
0
0.
6
2
B
8,
3
1
4
0.
6
6
C
6,
4
7
6
0.
6
2
B
8,340 0.66 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
37
3
0.
1
4
C
2,
3
6
2
0.
8
7
D
41
9
0.
1
5
C
2,414 0.89 D
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
19
3
0.
0
7
C
2,
6
7
8
0.
9
9
E
22
0
0.
0
8
C
2,709 1.00 E
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
31
7
0.
1
2
C
1,
5
3
8
0.
5
7
C
32
2
0.
1
2
C
1,543 0.57 C
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Volume V/C LOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
11
,
3
4
7
0.
8
4
D
6,
8
9
9
0.
6
6
C
0.
7
9
0.
7
9
D
6,911 0.66 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
9,
4
1
1
0.
9
0
D
7,
1
7
8
0.
5
7
B
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
D
7,201 0.57 B
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
1,
4
6
0
0.
5
4
C
2,
3
5
2
0.
8
7
D
0.
8
9
0.
8
9
C
2,391 0.88 D
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
2,
0
7
4
0.
7
7
C
63
9
0.
2
4
C
1.
0
0
1.
0
0
C
675 0.25 C
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
1,
5
8
1
0.
5
8
C
67
8
0.
2
5
C
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
C
681 0.25 C
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
3
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 91
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
3
.
M
T
S
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
&
F
r
e
e
w
a
y
S
e
g
m
en
t
s
-
L
o
n
g
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
(
Y
e
a
r
2
0
3
5
)
Lo
n
g
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
n
g
‐Te
r
m
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
plus Project
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
VolumeV/CLOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
9,
7
9
3
0.
7
3
C
9,
1
9
1
0.
8
8
C
9,
7
9
8
0.
7
3
C
9,198 0.88 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
7,
8
4
1
0.
7
5
C
8,
9
1
3
0.
7
0
C
7,
8
6
0
0.
7
5
C
8,937 0.71 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
1,
5
9
5
0.
5
9
C
2,
5
8
3
0.
9
5
E
1,
6
3
6
0.
6
0
C
2,615 0.97 E
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
77
7
0.
2
9
C
3,
0
1
7
1.
1
1
F
80
2
0.
3
0
C
3,047 1.12 F
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
46
5
0.
1
7
C
2,
2
1
9
0.
8
2
D
47
0
0.
1
7
C
2,223 0.82 D
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
NB
/
E
B
SB
/
W
B
NB
/
E
B
SB/WB
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Vo
l
u
m
e
V/
C
LO
S
Volume V/C LOS
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
s
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
i
v
e
11
,
7
4
1
0.
8
7
D
7,
9
5
2
0.
7
6
C
11
,
7
5
6
0.
8
7
D
7,935 0.76 C
I‐58
0
‐
we
s
t
of
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
10
,
2
1
7
0.
9
7
D
7,
9
0
9
0.
6
3
C
10
,
2
1
8
0.
9
7
D
7,931 0.63 C
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
we
s
t
of
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
2,
6
3
0
0.
9
7
E
3,
1
7
1
1.
1
7
F
2,
6
8
4
0.
9
9
E
3,178 1.17 F
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
ea
s
t
of
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
2,
9
5
5
1.
0
9
F
2,
5
1
7
0.
9
3
D
2,
9
7
2
1.
1
0
F
2,552 0.94 D
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
no
r
t
h
of
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
2,
4
9
8
0.
9
2
D
90
5
0.
3
3
C
2,
5
0
2
0.
9
2
D
906 0.33 C
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
3
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 92
Supplemental Impacts to Routes of Regional Significance. Arterial level of service analysis
was conducted for Routes of Regional Significance in the project area to determine if the project
would cause the segment to degrade below LOS D or if the project would cause the volume to
capacity ratio to increase by 0.02 or more when the arterial is already operating below LOS D
without the project. The volume to capacity ratio was calculated by dividing the volume on the
segment by the capacity of the segment. The results of the analysis are presented in this section.
Detailed worksheets are included in Appendix E of SEIR Appendix 8.6.
Existing Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-14, arterial segments would operate below LOS D
standard under Existing conditions but the project impacts are considered to be significant at
only the following roadways:
The eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive
would degrade to LOS E with the project in the AM peak hour.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS F under No Project scenario and the project would cause
the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the PM peak hour; while the
northbound segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway would degrade to
LOS E with the project in the PM peak hour.
Dublin Boulevard Between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia roadway segment impact s
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-10 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
Hacienda Dr. and Hibernia Dr.). The project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the
AM peak hour under Existing conditions. The project would only add 30 trips to this
segment (significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Dublin Boulevard.
The deterioration of level service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger
intersections along Dublin Boulevard such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara
Road. Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts
related to pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 93
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
4
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
O
S-
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
4 0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
B
23
0.
0
0
9
C
C
20 0.007
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
35
6
0
D
D
23
0.
0
0
6
D
D
29 0.008
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
C
C
0 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
B
B
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
E
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
2 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
D
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
E
30
0.
0
1
1
YE
S
D
D
28 0.010
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
A
A
30
0.
0
1
1
B
B
28 0.010
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
26
7
0
F
F
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
36
0.
0
1
3
D
D
42 0.016
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
B
B
42 0.016
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
C
C
42 0.016
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
F
F
42 0.016
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
32
0.
0
1
2
C
D
43 0.016
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 94
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
3 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
F
2
0.
0
0
1
C
C
3 0.001
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
C
D
52 0.019
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
B
B
73
0.
0
2
7
B
B
52 0.019
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
E
E
53 0.020
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
51
0.
0
1
4
D
D
83 0.023
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
68
0.
0
2
5
C
D
121 0.045
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
D
D
12
0
0.
0
4
5
F
F
190 0.071 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
35
6
0
F
F
48
0.
0
1
3
F
F
43 0.012
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
D
D
21
0.
0
1
2
D
E
17 0.010 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
20
0.
0
0
8
F
F
27 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
E
E
50
0.
0
1
5
E
E
66 0.019
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
12
6
0.
0
3
7
C
C
99 0.029
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
58
0.
0
2
3
C
C
53 0.021
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
C
C
58
0.
0
1
7
C
C
53 0.016
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
B
B
3
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.002
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
D
D
6
0.
0
0
2
E
E
8 0.003
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
16
9
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
3
C
C
4 0.002
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
2
D
D
6 0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
4 0.002
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 95
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hacienda Drive Between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-11 (roadway segment impact along Hacienda Dr. between Dublin
Blvd. and Central Pkwy.). The project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E.
Project traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda
Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by 0.071
(significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate
pedestrian crossings of Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal
priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Optimization
of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or
prohibition pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda Drive.
However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian
mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the project developer shall prepare a transportation demand
management (TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the
project. The project developer shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM
plan, which shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The
TDM plan should include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 96
Short-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-15, 19 arterial segments would
operate below LOS D standard under Short-Term Cumulative conditions but the project impacts
are considered to be significant at only the following four segments:
The eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse
Parkway would operate at LOS E under No Project scenario and the project would cause
the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the PM peak hour.
The westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road
would operate at LOS E under No Project scenario and the project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio to increase by more than 0.02 in the AM peak hour.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour
under No Project scenario and the project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to
increase by more than 0.02.
The northbound Tassajara Road segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central
Parkway would degrade to LOS E with the project in the PM peak hour.
Dublin Boulevard Between DeMarcus Boulevard and the Iron Horse Parkway roadway segment
impact. Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified
below.
Supplemental Impact TR-12 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
DeMarcus Blvd. and Iron Horse Pkwy.) The project would cause the volume to capacity
ratio along the eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and
Iron Horse Parkway to increase by 0.03 where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak
hour under Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario. (significant supplemental impact
remains significant and unavoidable).
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 97
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
5
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
LO
S
-
S
h
o
r
t
-
T
e
r
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
4 0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
23
0.
0
0
9
D
D
20 0.007
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
D
D
23
0.
0
0
9
E
E
29 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
52
0.
0
1
9
C
C
80 0.030
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
D
D
52
0.
0
1
9
D
D
80 0.030
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
E
E
52
0.
0
1
9
E
E
80 0.030 YES
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
D
D
52
0.
0
1
9
C
D
80 0.030
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
2 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
30
0.
0
1
1
E
E
28 0.010
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
D
D
28 0.010
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
30
0.
0
1
1
C
C
28 0.010
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
26
7
0
F
F
30
0.
0
1
1
F
F
28 0.010
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
E
E
42 0.016
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
D
D
42 0.016
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
33
0.
0
1
2
D
D
42 0.016
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
33
0.
0
1
2
C
C
42 0.016
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
32
0.
0
1
2
E
E
43 0.016
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
B
B
3 0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
E
F
2
0.
0
0
1
E
E
3 0.001
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 98
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
D
D
73
0.
0
2
7
D
D
52 0.019
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
73
0.
0
2
7
C
C
52 0.019
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
E
E
73
0.
0
2
7
YE
S
D
D
53 0.020
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
51
0.
0
1
4
D
D
83 0.023
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
68
0.
0
2
5
C
C
121 0.045
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
E
E
12
0
0.
0
4
5
YE
S
F
F
190 0.071 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
48
0.
0
1
8
F
F
43 0.016
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
D
D
21
0.
0
1
2
D
D
17 0.010
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
20
0.
0
0
8
F
F
27 0.011
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
F
F
50
0.
0
1
5
F
F
66 0.019
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
D
D
12
6
0.
0
3
7
C
C
99 0.029
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
58
0.
0
2
3
C
C
53 0.021
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
D
D
58
0.
0
1
7
D
D
53 0.016
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
D
D
3
0.
0
0
2
E
E
4 0.002
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
E
E
6
0.
0
0
2
F
F
8 0.003
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
16
9
0
C
C
5
0.
0
0
3
D
E
4 0.002 YES
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
F
F
5
0.
0
0
1
F
F
6 0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
4 0.001
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
4 0.002
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
e
l
s
o
n
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
2
0
1
4
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 99
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Dublin Boulevard.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Dublin
Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
project developer shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which
shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan
should include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard Between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-13 (roadway segment impact along Dublin Blvd. between
Scarlett Dr. and Dougherty Rd.) The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty
Road to increase by 0.027 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Dublin Boulevard.
The deterioration of level service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger
intersections along Dublin Boulevard such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive and Tassajara
Road. Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on
Dublin Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts
related to pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 100
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Hacienda Drive between the I-580 Westbound Ramps and Hacienda Crossings roadway segment
impact. Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified
below.
Supplemental Impact TR-14 (under short-term cumulative No Project conditions, roadway
segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between the I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing). The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing to increase by 0.045 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and
by 0.071 where it would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario (significant supplemental impact remains significant and
unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to delay resulting from long cycle length
necessary to facilitate pedestrian crossings across Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard
intersection as well as the signal priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic
on Hacienda Drive.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
project developer shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which
shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan
should include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 101
Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Construction of the project
would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-15 (under short-term cumulative conditions, roadway segment
impact along northbound Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and Central Pkwy.). The
project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road segment between Dublin Boulevard
and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the project would only add 4 trips to this
segment, this impact is considered to be significant (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Tassajara Road.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Tassajara
Road. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Long-Term Cumulative Conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-16, most of the study arterial
segments would operate below LOS D standard under Long-Term Cumulative conditions but the
project impacts are considered to be significant at only the following roadways:
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 102
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
2
-
1
6
.
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
L
O
S
-
L
o
n
g
-
T
er
m
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐2 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
F
F
0 0.000
Do
u
g
h
‐
er
t
y
Rd
SB
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
F
F
‐1 0.000
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
E
E
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D
0 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
F
F
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D ‐2 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
EB
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Ro
a
d
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
C
C
12
0.
0
0
4
E
E
16 0.006
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
C
C
20
0.
0
0
7
D
D
32 0.012
De
M
a
r
c
u
s
Bl
v
d
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
D
D
19
0.
0
0
7
F
F
30 0.011
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
D
D
17
0.
0
0
6
C
C
29 0.011
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
2
0.
0
0
1
C
C ‐2 ‐0.001
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
26
7
0
E
E
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
0 0.000
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
B
B
21
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐21 ‐0.008
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
22
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐19 ‐0.007
To
y
o
t
a
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
A
A
22
0.
0
0
8
C
C ‐18 ‐0.007
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
22
0.
0
0
8
F
F
‐18 ‐0.007
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
35
6
0
F
F
22
0.
0
0
6
F
F
‐16 ‐0.004
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
WB
Ta
s
s
a
j
a
r
a
Rd
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
16
0.
0
0
6
F
F
1 0.000
Gl
y
n
n
i
s
Ro
s
e
Dr
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
26
7
0
B
B
15
0.
0
0
6
D
D ‐2 ‐0.001
Jo
h
n
Mo
n
e
g
o
Ct
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
15
0.
0
0
6
C
C ‐2 ‐0.001
My
r
t
l
e
Dr
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
26
7
0
D
D
14
0.
0
0
5
D
D ‐3 ‐0.001
Hi
b
e
r
n
i
a
Dr
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
35
6
0
E
E
13
0.
0
0
4
F
F
‐4 ‐0.001
Du
b
l
i
n
WB
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Dr
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
26
7
0
C
C
2
0.
0
0
1
D
D
3 0.001
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 103
Di
r
Fr
o
m
To
Ca
p
a
‐
ci
t
y
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM Peak Hour
LO
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Tr
i
p
s
V/
C
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Im
‐
pa
c
t
LO
S
Project Trips V/C Increase Im‐pact
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pl
u
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Bl
v
d
Sy
b
a
s
e
Dr
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
26
7
0
F
F
2
0.
0
0
1
F
F
2 0.001
Ar
n
o
l
d
Rd
.
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
26
7
0
C
D
60
0.
0
2
2
F
F
0 0.000
Ir
o
n
Ho
r
s
e
Pk
w
y
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
26
7
0
E
E
61
0.
0
2
3
YE
S
F
F
3 0.001
Ca
m
p
Pa
r
k
s
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
26
7
0
F
F
61
0.
0
2
3
YE
S
D
D ‐6 ‐0.002
Sc
a
r
l
e
t
t
Dr
i
v
e
Do
u
g
h
e
r
t
y
Rd
26
7
0
D
D
41
0.
0
1
5
E
E
2 0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
NB
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
35
6
0
D
D
7
0.
0
0
2
E
E
13 0.004
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
26
7
0
C
C ‐
9 ‐
0.
0
0
3
E
E
25 0.009
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
26
7
0
E
E
‐55
‐
0.
0
2
1
F
F
54 0.020 YES
Ha
c
i
e
n
d
a
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
26
7
0
F
F
37
0.
0
1
4
F
F
‐22 ‐0.008
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
17
8
0
F
F
19
0.
0
1
1
D
D ‐1 ‐0.001
Ha
c
i
e
n
‐
da
Dr
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
25
4
0
F
F
7
0.
0
0
3
F
F
15 0.006
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
33
9
0
F
F
17
0.
0
0
5
F
F
8 0.002
Ma
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
Wa
y
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
D
D
90
0.
0
2
7
C
C ‐38 ‐0.011
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
D
D
33
0.
0
1
3
C
C ‐36 ‐0.014
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
Ow
e
n
s
Dr
i
v
e
33
9
0
E
E
35
0.
0
1
0
D
D ‐36 ‐0.011
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
NB
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
16
9
0
C
C
3
0.
0
0
2
D
D ‐5 ‐0.003
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
E
E
4
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐8 ‐0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
25
4
0
D
D
0
0.
0
0
0
D
D ‐7 ‐0.003
Ta
s
s
a
‐
ja
r
a
Rd
SB
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
Pk
w
y
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
33
9
0
F
F
‐2 ‐
0.
0
0
1
F
F
‐8 ‐0.002
Du
b
l
i
n
Bl
v
d
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
33
9
0
C
C
6
0.
0
0
2
C
C
1 0.000
I‐58
0
WB
Ra
m
p
s
I‐58
0
EB
Ra
m
p
s
25
4
0
E
E
7
0.
0
0
3
D
D
2 0.001
So
u
r
c
e
:
K
i
t
t
l
e
s
o
n
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
(
2
0
1
4
)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 104
The westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Scarlett
Drive would operate at LOS E and LOS F in the AM peak hour under No project
scenario and the project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to increase by more
than 0.02.
The northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under No Project scenario and the
project would cause the volume to capacity ratio to increase by 0.02.
Dublin Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks roadway segment impact.
Construction of the project would result in an impact at the roadway segment identified below.
Supplemental Impact TR-16 (under long-term cumulative conditions, roadway segment
impact along westbound Dublin Blvd. between Iron Horse Pkwy. and Camp Parks). The
project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along the westbound Dublin Boulevard
segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks where it would operate at LOS E
and between Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where it would operate at LOS F in the AM
peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by 0.023
(significant supplemental impact remains significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impacts on Dublin Boulevard.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Dublin
Boulevard. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Dublin Boulevard between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia roadway segment impacts Construction
of the project would result in an impact along the following roadway segment.
Supplemental Impact TR-17 (under long-term cumulative No Project conditions, roadway
segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between the I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing). The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 105
Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour where it would operate at LOS F
under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario (significant supplemental impact remains
significant and unavoidable).
No feasible mitigation measure has been identified for the project impact on Hacienda Drive.
The deterioration of level service is primarily due to long cycle length required to facilitate
pedestrian crossings across Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the
signal priority given to Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive.
Optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through
lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive. However, such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to
pedestrian mobility and intersection level of service. Therefore, the project impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or more
employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As an
alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the project. The
Project shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be
approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should
include, but not be limited to, elements described under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2.
However, it cannot be ascertained that the potential benefits of the TDM measures to reduce
traffic volumes and improve speed along the corridor can reduce the project impact to less-than-
significant. Therefore, the project impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Supplemental Impacts to Public Transit. The demand for public transit service resulting from
the implementation of the proposed project was estimated using the Alameda Countywide Travel
Demand Model (2035 forecast) and project trip generation. The Countywide Model indicates the
following mode shares for trips to and from the project site:
59% Drive Alone
30% Shared Ride
1% Transit
10% Bike/Walk
Applying these percentages to the project trip generation, after converting from vehicle trip
generation to total person trip generation, the project would generate approximately eight
additional transit trips during the AM and PM peak hours.
Given the current peak hour boardings on key LAVTA bus routes, the transit trips added by the
project would represent a seven percent increase in peak hour boardings compared to existing
bus service. If it is conservatively assumed that most or all of the project boardings would be on
the highest ridership route, Route 12, the resulting passenger load would be well within seated
capacity. Therefore, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 106
The Alameda County travel model may not fully represent the additional transit use induced by
the project’s close proximity to BART. The vehicle trip generation for the project incorporates a
five percent reduction for BART use. This would correspond to 40 to 50 BART passengers
during peak hours. The added passengers are within BART’s ridership forecast of approximately
6,000 annual increase in weekday ridership per year and consistent with BART’s future service
and capacity plans.11 Therefore the project would not require changes in BART’s planned service
levels. Therefore, the project impact would be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures
are required.
The Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that the GPA/SP Project would create a need for substantial
expansion of transit systems, resulting in a significant impact. The impact of the project on
BART and LAVTA bus service was adequately analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The project
is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable.
Supplemental Impacts to Bicycle Facilities. As stated in the Environmental Setting section, the
City of Dublin Bikeway Master Plan proposes a number of new bicycle facilities along roadways
in the study area, including bike lanes on Arnold Road directly adjacent to the project site, and
on Martinelli Way and Altamirano Road immediately west of the project site. The proposed
project would not interfere with implementation of the planned bike lanes or disrupt existing
bikeways in the project area. Since the project’s limited access driveway on Arnold Road would
only serve as a secondary access, any potential conflict with bicyclists is anticipated to be
minimal. Driveway access design should ensure sight distance is adequate to allow a clear view
of bicyclists for both inbound and outbound vehicles. Because detailed plans containing such
information as the proposed number of on-site bicycle parking space and driveway design are not
available at the time of this analysis, the project impact is potentially significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-18 (impacts to bicycle facilities). The project could conflict with
adopted bicycle plans, guidelines, policies or standards (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-18 (impacts to bicycle facilities). Prior to
issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit design plans that are
consistent with applicable City guidelines, polices and standards for review and approval
by the City.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant. The
project is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable, and the
project plans are expected to incorporate such mitigations subject to review and approval by the
City.
Supplemental Pedestrian Impacts. The project would result in an increase in walk trips in the
project area by visitors and residents. While the project is not anticipated to result in unsafe
condition for pedestrians or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or program, detailed plans
containing such information as pedestrian improvements along the frontage and within the
11 Bay Area Rapid Transit District Short-Range Transit Plan, FY08 through FY17, 2007.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 107
project site are not available at the time of this analysis, the project impact is potentially
significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-19 (impacts to pedestrian facilities). The project could conflict
with adopted policies, plans or program supporting pedestrians (significant supplemental
impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-19 (impacts to pedestrian facilities). Prior to
issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit design plans that are
consistent with applicable City guidelines, polices and standards for review and approval
by the City.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant. The
project is subject to the mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR as applicable, and the
project plans are expected to incorporate such mitigations subject to review and approval by the
City.
Supplemental Impacts to Complete Street Policy. A detailed site plan was not available for
review at the time of this analysis. However, a preliminary drawing indicates short residential
blocks with walkways between buildings that would facilitate pedestrian circulation within the
project site. It also shows curb extensions throughout the site that would help calm traffic in both
the retail commercial area near the main entry and the residential portions of the site thereby
creating a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Project may consider the
following features that would further accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders:
Ensure direct pedestrian access points are provided onto Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road
and Martinelli Way in addition to the proposed vehicular access locations in order to
facilitate convenient access for pedestrians and transit riders. This is particularly
important in the southwestern portion through which residents and visitors might access
the BART station along the frontage road and in the southeast portion where no driveway
is proposed along Hacienda Drive.
Provide secure long-term bicycle storage for employees of the retail commercial land use
in addition to the required short-term bicycle parking spaces.
Supplemental Impact TR-20 (impacts to pedestrian Complete Streets policies). The project
could conflict with adopted policies, plans or program supporting pedestrians, including
the City’s Complete Streets policies (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-20 (impacts to pedestrian Complete Streets
policies). Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit design
plans that are consistent with the City’s Complete Street Policy and design standards for
review and approval by the City.
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 108
Supplemental Impacts to Traffic Safety. A detailed design plan is not available at the time of
this analysis; therefore, it is uncertain if the project would include features that would directly or
indirectly cause or expose roadway users to a permanent and substantial transportation hazard.
Supplemental Impact TR-21 (traffic safety impacts). The project could include design
features that would not be consistent with the City’s engineering design standards or
standards published by the ITE or Caltrans (significant supplemental impact and mitigation
required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-21 (traffic safety impacts). Prior to issuance of
any permit for the project, the project developer shall submit design plans that are
consistent with the City’s Complete Street Policy for review and approval by the City. All
designs shall conform to City standards. (significant supplemental impact and mitigation
required).
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
Supplemental Impacts during Construction. The project would be constructed over a period
of time. Construction would include numerous disruptions to the transportation system in and
around the project area, which may include temporary street closures and sidewalk closures.
Heavy vehicles would access the project area and would need to be staged for construction.
Short-term construction activities and staging of construction vehicles and equipment would
result in degraded roadway operations.
Supplemental Impact TR-22 (construction period impacts). Project construction activities
such as the import of the fill material and delivery of materials could result in impacts to
vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access in and around the project area (significant
supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-22 (construction period impacts). Before
issuance of grading permits for the project, the project developer shall prepare a detailed
Traffic Management Plan that will be subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin,
LAVTA, and local emergency service providers, including the City of Dublin Fire
Prevention Bureau and the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The plan shall
ensure maintenance of acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and transit
routes. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) Limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a staging area with a
limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and
private vehicle pick up and drop off areas)
f) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 109
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access
Upon implementation of this measure, the project impact would be less-than-significant.
Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts are addressed above.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 110
4.3 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the DSEIR analyzes potential supplemental impacts with respect to schools and
parks and recreation services.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Schools. Public education facilities within the City of Dublin are provided by the Dublin Unified
School District (DUSD). The District operates six elementary schools, two middle schools, and
one high school. A continuation high school and a K-3 parent participation program is also
operated by the DUSD.
Schools that would be affected by the proposed project include:
• Dougherty Elementary, 5301 Hibernia
• Fallon Middle School, 3601 Kohnen Way
• Dublin High School, 8151 Village Parkway
• Valley High School, 6901 York Drive
Elementary schools located near the project site are operating near or at planned enrollment
capacity. The District may modify local school enrollment boundaries to optimize attendance at
each individual school.
Table 3.3-1 summarizes current enrollment and optimum capacity for affected local public
schools.
Table 4.3-1. Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity
School Facility 2013/14 Enrollment School Capacity
Dougherty Elementary 805 933
Fallon Middle School 1,110 1,232
Dublin High 1,737 2,232
Valley High 80 360
Source: Dublin Unified School District, 2013
In addition to the public schools identified above, a number of private schools are located in
Dublin and the larger Tri-Valley area.
In 1998 Senate Bill 50 became effective as a result of the California voters approving
Proposition 1A. SB 50 establishes an amount of allowable developer fees, which is known as a
Level 1 fee. The statute allows a school district to exceed the base Level 1 fees and impose
higher Level 2 fees if the district 1) is determined to be eligible for State funding; 2) adopts a
school facilities needs analysis; and 3) satisfies other criteria of SB 50. Statutory provisions
establish a maximum amount of Level 2 fees for all projects within a particular school district.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 111
The statute also allows a district to impose Level 3 fees if Level 2 fees have been imposed and
state funding is no longer available. Currently, the DUSD collects Level 2 fees from developers.
Parks. The City of Dublin operates and extensive local parks system as well as a comprehensive
array of recreation programs within local parks and elsewhere in the community. No
neighborhood or community parks are located on the project site.
Parks closest to the project site include Emerald Glen Park, consisting of approximately 48 acres
of parkland with ball courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, turf areas, restrooms and similar
facilities. Emerald Glen Park is located on the north side of Central Parkway west of Tassajara
Road. Another nearby facility is the Dublin Sports Grounds located adjacent to the Dublin Civic
Center on the south side of Dublin Boulevard at Sierra Court. This facility offers baseball and
football/soccer fields, a play area, picnicking, turf areas and restrooms.
The City recently approved and is designing a passive linear park adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail
north of Amador Valley Boulevard.
Regional park and recreational facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District.
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan (May 2006) recommends that the City
provide a total of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, which includes 1.5 acres of neighborhood
parkland and 3.5 acres of community parkland. In lieu of providing new parkland to the City,
project builders and developers may elect to pay a Community Facility Fee that includes a
component for “in-lieu” park fees to satisfy park dedication requirements.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following regulatory programs and policies regulate provision of parks and schools in
Dublin.
Dublin General Plan. The Open Space Element of the Dublin General Plan contains the
following policies regarding open space within the Primary and Extended Planning Areas of the
community.
• Expand park area throughout the Primary and Extended Planning Areas to serve new
development (Guiding Policy A.1).
• Maintain and improve existing outdoor facilities in conformance with the
recommendations of the City’s parks and Recreation Master Plan (Guiding Policy A.2).
• Acquire and improve parklands in conformance with the standards and policies in the
City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Implementing Policy B.1)
• Provide active parks and facilities which are adequate o meet citywide needs for open
space, cultural and sports facilities, as the local needs of the Eastern Extended Planning
Area (Guiding Policy A.1)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 112
• Require land dedication and improvements in parks designated in the General Plan for
the eastern Extended Planning Area and based on a standard of 5 net acres per 1,000
residents. Collect in-lieu park fees as required by City policies (Implementing Policy
B.1).
The following General Plan policy deals with provision of public schools.
• Require provision of school sites through dedication and/or developer fees. Establish
appropriate mechanism for funding development of school facilities. (Implementing
Policy B.1).
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains he following goals
and policies relative to public schools.
• To provide school facilities adequate to meet the community’s need to quality education
(Goal 8.1).
• Ensure that adequate school facilities are available prior to development in Eastern
Dublin, to the extent permitted by law.
Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, updated in
2006, has been adopted to establishing goals, long-term policies and standards to guide the City
in the acquisition, development and management of Dublin Park’s and Recreation facilities for a
twenty-year period.
State of California SB 50. This act (also known as the School Facilities Act of 1998) provides
for state of California funding of school facilities under certain criteria,; however, it also limits
the amount of impact fees that local school districts could charge.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing
fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new
development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail
corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the
City’s parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication
requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active
recreation use.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of community facilities was not analyzed in the IKEA SEIR.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 113
Development on the project site will be required to pay the City of Dublin Public Facilities fee,
which includes park development fees.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section identifies potentially significant impacts to schools and parks.
Significance criteria. A proposed project would be considered to result in a significant impact if
there is a demonstrable need for new or expanded parks or school facilities to serve the proposed
project, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratio or other performance objectives of the public service provider.
Supplemental school impacts. No residences currently exist on the site that generate school
children that need to be served by the Dublin Unified School District. Approval and construction
of the proposed project would add up to 400 residences. According to the DUSD, 127 students
would be generated at full project build-out. This is shown on Table 4.3-2, below.
Table 4.3-2. DUSD Student Generation Rates
Grade Level/School Students Generated
K-5/Dougherty Elementary 69
6-8/Wells or Fallon Middle School 27
9-12/Dublin High or Valley High School 31
Total Students Generated 127
Source: DUSD, 2014
Under SB 50, payment of the permitted school fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation
of school facilities impacts for CEQA and other purposes. SB 50 limits the amount of fees a
school district may legally impose on new development. DUSD imposes these fees on new
development; therefore, there would be no supplemental impacts related to funding of school
facilities.
Supplemental park impacts. Approval and construction of the project would result in up to 400
attached dwellings on The Green site. Based on information contained in Section 4.1 of the
DSEIR (Population and Housing), build-out of these dwellings would generate approximately
1,080 residents on the site that would require local park space. The proposed project would also
result in new commercial development that would attract visitors, shoppers and employees to the
site that may use local park facilities. The current project proposal does not include the provision
of any public park space, although the site is proposed to contain approximately 2.25 acres of
open gathering spaces for both the commercial uses and private residences.
According to the City of Dublin’s Park and Community Facilities Director (Paul McCreary,
8/23/13), this portion of Dublin is considered underserved by neighborhood parkland.
Pursuant to the City’s park dedication ratio of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, the proposed
project would require the dedication of 5 acres of local parkland to the City of Dublin. This
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 114
amount is not proposed to be dedicated to the City. Since this portion of Dublin is considered
underserved for neighborhood parks, this would be a significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Impact Park-1 (lack of adequate local parkland). Build-out of the proposed
project would require the dedication of 5 acres of local parkland on the project site. The
proposed project provides no public park space (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental measure would mitigate the above impact to a less-
than-significant level by requiring a combination of dedicating a minimum 2-acre neighborhood
square and partial payment of Community Facility fees.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Park-1 (lack of adequate local parkland). As part of
the first final subdivision map for the project, the project developer(s) shall dedicate a
minimum two-acre Neighborhood Square to the City of Dublin. The size, configuration and
location of the Neighborhood Square shall be approved by the Dublin Parks and
Community Services Department. Project developer(s) shall satisfy remaining local park
requirements by paying fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 115
4.4 PUBLIC UTILITIES – SEWER & WATER
Sewer, water, storm drainage, electricity and natural gas, and solid waste were analyzed in
Chapter 3.4 and Chapter 3.5 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the analysis in the NOP, only
sewer and water required supplemental analysis under CEQA standards.
WASTEWATER
Wastewater (referred to as “Sewer” in the Eastern Dublin EIR) Collection, Treatment and
Disposal impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage, of the Eastern
Dublin EIR. This supplemental analysis is provided in accordance with CEQA standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal issues for the
Project area. DSRSD, which owns and operates a treatment plant in Pleasanton, was identified as
the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area with disposal
provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint
powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD. LAVWMA operates a
pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into East Bay Dischargers
Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge into San Francisco Bay. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identified the Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA), a joint powers authority which, at
that time, was planning for disposal capacity beyond that which could be provided by
LAVWMA. TWA was at that date proposing to transport untreated wastewater through the
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District collection system for treatment and disposal in Martinez.
In 1994 TWA transferred authority over acquiring/constructing additional disposal capacity to
LAVWMA. LAVWMA, as described below, subsequently chose to construct improvements to
its existing disposal pipeline and the construction of a second disposal pipeline over the Dublin
Grade for discharge into San Francisco Bay using EBDA facilities (1994 Addendum to the
Eastern Dublin EIR).
Most recently, LAVWMA have confirmed that wastewater disposal pipeline from the Tri-Valley
area to the East Bay Dischargers outfall facility has been constructed and is fully operational.
The pipeline has been designed and constructed to accommodate maximum General Plan build-
out of all of the participating communities in the Tri-Valley area including Dublin (source: Ed
Cunningham, LAVMWA Executive Director 8/25/13).
Regulatory framework
The EDSP established Goals, Policies and Action Programs to guide cooperation between the
City, the DSRSD and the project developers in producing new wastewater collection, treatment
and disposal facilities. These policies included coordinating with DSRSD on the expansion of
their recycled water service boundary, ensuring availability of wastewater treatment and disposal
capacity by working with DSRSD and requiring developers to get “will-serve” letters from
DSRSD prior to City grading permit approval.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 116
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous potential impacts related to wastewater. The lack of
a collection system was identified as a significant impact and Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0,
generally preventing development until such facilities are constructed by developers, were
adopted to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Potential growth inducing impacts
of pipeline construction were mitigated by preventing the construction of facilities greater than
those required for the GPA/SP project. Inadequate treatment plant capacity in DSRSD's
treatment plan and inadequate disposal capacity were identified as significant impacts: both were
mitigated to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures requiring developers to obtain
"will-serve" letters from DSRSD prior to issuance of grading permits; DSRSD will not issue a
"will-serve" letter in the absence of treatment plant and disposal capacity. An additional
mitigation measure requires Eastern Dublin developers to prepare detailed wastewater capacity
investigations. Other mitigation measures supported DSRSD, TWA and, subsequently,
LAVWMA in efforts to expand treatment and disposal capacity (along with recycled water
projects). Other impacts to the planned TWA disposal systems and the recycled water systems
related to noise, odors and potential spills also were identified and mitigated to levels of
insignificance. The impact of the use of recycled water on the main groundwater basin was
identified as a potential impact and a mitigation measure requiring coordination of recycled
water projects with Zone 7's salt mitigation program mitigated this impact to insignificance.
Even with these mitigation measures, several impacts related to increased energy use for the
sewer systems (Impact 3.5/F,H,V) and growth-inducement (Impact 3.5/T) remained significant
and unavoidable. Upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these impacts (Resolution No. 53-93).
Wastewater issues were not analyzed in the IKEA Supplemental EIR.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The project includes a change in the type of development proposed on the site from large
commercial development evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR to a mixed-use
residential and commercial project. This may create potentially significant impacts to wastewater
treatment and disposal capacity.
Significance Criteria. Implementation of the project would be considered to have a significant
wastewater impact if, in addition to the impacts previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, it
were to:
exceed wastewater treatment standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board; or
require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects.
Supplemental impacts. The following project level impacts are analyzed in this section of the
DSEIR: the adequacy of the wastewater collection, wastewater treatment capacity and treatment
and the adequacy of wastewater disposal systems.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 117
Estimated wastewater generation. DSRSD staff estimated the generation of wastewater from The
Green project as compared to the approved use of 305,000 sq. ft. of General Commercial that
would occur under currently approved development plans. This is shown on Table 4.4-1, below.
The table shows that the project would generate an additional estimated 50,885 gallons of
wastewater per day at build-out over the amount of wastewater expected to be generated by the
approved General Commercial use.
Table 4.4-1. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Wastewater Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Use Factor Wastewater (GPD)
Approved Use
General Commercial
Estimated
Wastewater Demand
305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condominium/
Townhouse
400 DU 120 gpd/DU 48,000 gpd
Total Estimated Project Wastewater Demand52,000 gpd
Difference between Approved Project and Proposed Project +21,500 gpd with
Proposed Project
Source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 4/25/2014
Wastewater treatment capacity. DSRSD operates a wastewater treatment plant that serves
customers from both DSRSD and the City of Pleasanton. Raw wastewater from Dublin,
including the project site, is treated at the District’s regional treatment plant which is located
north of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The regional plant has been designed and maintained
Regional Water Quality Board approvals to treat 17.0 million gallons of wastewater (mgd) per
day. Inflow on untreated wastewater into the plant averages 11.0 mgd in the dry season (source:
S. Kolodzie, DSRSD, 10/24/13).
Therefore, the District has adequate wastewater treatment capacity at the regional plant to
accommodate the estimated 81,385 gallons of wastewater that would be generated per day. No
new or expanded wastewater facilities would be needed to serve the proposed project nor would
the amount of additional wastewater flows exceed the Regional Water Board’s approved limit of
the DSRSD wastewater treatment plan. The amount of additional wastewater would result in a
less-than-significant impact on a project and cumulative level.
Wastewater disposal capacity. LAVWMA, a joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the
cities of Livermore and Pleasanton and the DSRSD to dispose of treated wastewater in the Tri-
Valley area. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of Livermore
and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in Pleasanton and then via a 16-
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 118
mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro.
The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay.
The Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) pipeline that disposes
of treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay via East Bay Dischargers facilities may have
inadequate capacity to accommodate the increased amount of treated wastewater generated by
the proposed The Green project.
The export pipeline has been expanded in size in 1983, 1987 and 2003. It has a current maximum
capacity of 41.2 million gallons per day and was designed to accommodate the maximum build-
out of the General Plans from all participating LAVWMA agencies. Currently, average daily
flows in the export pipeline are far below the design capacity of pipe and more than adequate
wastewater disposal capacity exists for The Green project. The project would not require the
construction of new wastewater disposal facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. This
impact would be less-than-significant on a project level.
Similarly, the proposed project would be less-than-significant on a cumulative level, since no
new or expanded wastewater facilities would be required. The area of cumulative analysis is the
DSRSD boundary, which includes the City of Dublin and surrounding jurisdictions in the Tri-
Valley area.
WATER
Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, and Storm
Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR and in an addendum dated August 22, 1994. This
supplemental analysis is provided in accordance with CEQA standards. It also evaluates these
issues in light of the project’s revised land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Domestic and recycled water is supplied to The Green site by the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD or District). DSRSD obtains its potable water supplies from Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7), which wholesales
treated local surface water, groundwater, and imported water from the State Water Project to
retail water agencies. Recycled water is provided from DSRSD’s wastewater treatment plant in
Pleasanton and meets the State of California Title 22 requirements for unrestricted reuse.
Water Supply and Infrastructure. The City of Dublin and the Dougherty valley portion of San
Ramon are supplied by water provided by DSRSD, headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and
operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations, reservoirs, and
water turnouts. DSRSD obtains its potable water from Zone 7.
Treated potable water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 via four pipelines owned by Zone 7:
Cross Valley Pipeline, Santa Rita-Dougherty Pipeline, Santa Rita Pipeline, and Dougherty
Pipeline. This water is supplied through five turnouts. Turnout No. 1 is located at the
intersection of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. Turnout No. 2 is located at the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 119
intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Stagecoach Road. The third turnout is in the
vicinity of Arnold Drive and Altamirano Road. The fourth turnout is located on Friesman Road,
south of I-580, adjacent to Eastern Dublin. A fifth, seldom used, emergency turnout is located
on 4th Street within Camp Parks.
Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout DSRSD’s water service area,
including Dublin, via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to
residences, businesses, and other customers within the District’s service area. Such water
transmission facilities are present in Arnold Road, which is adjacent to the Project site.
Both Zone 7 and DSRSD impose fees on development to assist in funding each District’s
respective water infrastructure and pumping and storage of water supplies. DSRSD currently
charges connection and other fees on new development within the District’s service area. Fees
are used for construction of planned water system capital improvements, including storage,
pumping, transmission, and ongoing system water maintenance and improvements.
The District also provides recycled water for irrigation and other non-potable uses. DSRSD has
been aggressive in encouraging and requiring the use of recycled water. In November 2010,
DSRSD added to its regulatory code Section 3.20.110, Duty to Connect – Recycled Water. This
section requires new development to use recycled water for irrigation except under specific
conditions. Compliance is required if an applicant is to receive potable water service from
DSRSD. The proposed Project will use recycled water for all outdoor water use, including
irrigation, and the recycled water line will be extended down Martinelli Way to serve the site.
DSRSD also provides financial incentives for using recycled water. Developers do not pay Zone
7 water connection fees for their connections to DSRSD’s recycled water system and recycled
water rates are 11 percent less than potable water rates. New development within the Eastern
Dublin area has been required to install dual water systems and a recycled water distribution
system has been installed within the major streets, including Dublin Boulevard. A recycled water
pipeline is present in Martinelli Way near the Project site, and recycled water is available to
serve the Project once that line is extended as will be conditioned by the project approvals. The
City of Dublin also has Water-Efficient Landscaping Regulations that reduce water use for
irrigation (Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.88).
DSRSD’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan was adopted by the DSRSD Board of
Directors in June 2011(DSRSD UWMP). It is based on Zone 7’s 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (Zone 7 UWMP). Both the DSRSD UWMP and Zone 7 UWMP include a
projection of future potable and recycled water supply and demand through the year 2035. The
DSRSD UWMP and Zone 7 UWMP are incorporated herein by reference and are available for
public review at the City Public Works Department during normal business hours. The analysis
of water supply and demand for the DSRSD service area relies on these most recent UWMPs as
permitted under CEQA.
Potable Water. By contract, Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier. The current
contract between Zone 7 and DSRSD was entered into on August 23, 1994 and has a 30-year
term. The current contract is expected to be renewed beyond 2024, with substantially similar
provisions (source Stan Kolodzie, 4/14/14). Zone 7 uses a combination of water supplies and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 120
water storage facilities to meet DSRSD’s water demands.
Zone 7’s water supply sources include the following: State Water Project (SWP), Table A and
Yuba accord, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID), and local runoff from Arroyo Del Valle
(which is stored in Lake Del Valle). Zone 7 also uses the local underground aquifer basin as
storage and another source of water (the Main Basin).
The DSRSD UWMP estimates the amount of supply available from Zone 7 in the short-term and
long-term, beginning in 2015 and ending in 2035. The UWMP analyzes available supply during
normal water years, a single dry water year, and multiple dry water years. It includes projected
water supply under two scenarios: (1) with Zone 7 planned projects and programs implemented;
and (2) with Zone 7 planned projects and programs not implemented. In the DSRSD UWMP, all
of Zone 7’s customers, including the water retailers in the Livermore-Amador Valley, are
assumed to proportionally share the impacts of the shortages during dry water years.
Recycled Water. DSRSD’s water supply contract with Zone 7 allows it to pursue recycled water
opportunities. DSRSD currently produces and distributes recycled water in its service area.
DSRSD owns and operates recycled water treatment facilities (RWTF) at its wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). To maximize the beneficial use of recycled water, DSRSD and East
Bay Municipal Utility District formed a joint powers authority, DSRSD-EBMUD Recycled
Water Authority (DERWA), in 1995. DERWA operates the recycled water transmission system
that supplies recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF to portions of DSRSD’s and EBMUD’s
service areas.
DSRSD expects to increase DERWA deliveries as recycled water demands in its service area and
EBMUD’s service area increase. The total wastewater volume collected and treated at the
WWTP includes wastewater from both DSRSD’s service area and the City of Pleasanton, which
DSRSD treats by contract. The total volume of recycled water produced includes recycled water
for DERWA deliveries to both DSRSD and EBMUD.
The DSRSD UWMP projects the following amounts of recycled water supply available for its
service area in the following timeframes:
2015 2,500 area feet per year (afy)
2020 3,800 afy
2025 4,400 afy
2030 4,500 afy
3035 4,600 afy
Overall, the DSRSD water supply projections for 2015 – 2035 are set forth in Table 4.4-1,
below.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 121
Table 4.4-2. DSRSD Water Supply
Water Source 2015 2020 2015 2030 2015
Water Purchased from
Zone 7 Water Agency,
af/yr(a)
12,255 15,355 16,855 17,655 17,855
Groundwater Pumped by
Zone 7 on DSRSD’s Behalf,
af/yr(a)
645 645 645 645 645
DSRSD Recycled Water,
af/yr(a) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Total, af/yr 15,400 19,800 21,900 22,800 23,100
Source: DSRSD, 2014
Reliability of Water Supply to Meet Demand. Water supply reliability is discussed in detail in
the DSRSD UWMP. Maximizing water supply resources and minimizing dependence on
imported water are important strategic goals of Zone 7 and DSRSD. DSRSD’s potable water
supply comes solely from Zone 7, which depends on imported surface water for over 80 percent
of its supply. To minimize demand for this imported water, DSRSD has implemented an
extensive water conservation program and plans to maintain its efforts, including continuing to
expand the use of recycled water within its service area.
Potable Water Supply Reliability.
Zone 7 Reliability Policy
The most recent reliability policy was adopted by the Zone 7 Board of Directors on October 17,
2012, and includes the following level of service goals:
1. Meet 85 percent of M&I water demands 99 percent of the time;
2. Meet 100 percent of M&I water demands 90 percent of the time; and
3. Meet at least 80 percent of the maximum month demand during an extended
unplanned outage.
This reliability policy is different than the policy in place at time of adoption of the Zone 7
UWMP and DSRSD UWMP. Previously, Zone 7’s Reliability Policy was to meet 100% of its
customers’ potable water need under specified hydrologic conditions. The 2012 Reliability
Policy lowered the 100% reliability standard. However, it does not change the amount of water
supply available to the retailers under Normal, Single Dry, or Multiple Dry water years. Rather,
it provides Zone 7 with the additional flexibility and time necessary to evaluate, develop, and
implement cost effective solutions necessary to allow Zone 7 to continue to provide a reliable,
high quality water supply to its customers in the face of any future uncertainty in water supply.
Changing the third goal to reflect a prolonged outage on the maximum month instead of the
maximum day should allow Zone 7 to develop more cost effective solutions to major, prolonged
outages, while also providing the time necessary to communicate with and obtain a response
from its customers (the water retailers).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 122
Zone 7 Water Supply Reliability
As part of Zone 7 UWMP, the projected water supplies during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple
Dry water years were compared with its customers’ demand scenarios, both without potential
water conservation (“high water demand”) and with potential water conservation (“low water
demand”) associated with the Water Conservation Act of 2009. The results of this analysis are
excerpted from Section 16 of Zone 7 UWMP and summarized below.
Under Normal water years in the short-term, through 2015, Zone 7 has sufficient supply to meet
projected water demands, with or without additional conservation measures, assuming Zone 7
can successfully implement planned programs and projects. Note that a portion of the water
demand during a Normal water year includes the storage of water supply for use during dry
water years. The maximum potential shortage in the long-term, based on the high water demand
scenario, could be as high as 10,500 afy between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot implement
planned programs and projects.
Under Single Dry years, Zone 7 does not expect shortages through 2030 with the implementation
of planned programs and projects. The maximum potential shortage, based on the high water
demand scenario, could be as high as 8,700 afy between 2020 and 2030 if Zone 7 cannot
implement planned programs and projects. The maximum potential shortage during Single Dry
water years is lower than that for Normal water years, because Zone 7 makes use of its stored
water distributed between the local groundwater basin and the banking programs in Kern
County.
Finally, under Multiple Dry water years, planned programs and projects have similarly been
designed to prevent any shortages. Zone 7’s analysis indicates that, without such programs and
projects, shortages of up to 36,000 afy can be expected under a Multiple Dry water year scenario
ending in 2030, based on the high water demand scenario.
Zone 7 also is aggressively developing a strategy via its 2011 Water Supply Evaluation (2011
WSE) for providing a reliable, high quality water supply that will meet the needs of the
Livermore Amador Valley through buildout of adopted general plans.
Zone 7 2013 Annual Review
Zone 7 prepares annual reviews on water supply and programs. The most recent annual review
was completed in 2013 (2013 Annual Review). The conclusions of the 2013 Annual Review are
summarized below and incorporated herein by reference. The 2013 Annual Review concludes
that Zone 7 has sufficient water supplies to meet projected demands over the next five years with
or without water conservation measures. The 2013 Annual Review notes that water demand over
the next five-year period is anticipated to increase from 50,400 afy to 52,700 afy in 2017, with or
without water conservation. Imposition of water conservation measures would decrease
estimated water use by approximately 8.3% during the same time period. Zone 7’s long-term
water supply remains at some risk due to certain factors, including court rulings and biological
opinions associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and climate change. In response to
such uncertainty, Zone 7 continues to investigate and implement the recommendations of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 123
2011 WSE. As recommended in the 2011 WSE, Zone 7 is moving forward and evaluating a set
of actions to minimize the risk of water supply shortages, including: working with the local water
supply retailers to develop additional water conservation savings and recycled water programs;
continuing to implement the Well Master Plan and Chain of Lakes projects; confirming water
supply available from the existing contract with BBID; minimizing or reusing brine losses from
the existing Mocho Groundwater Demineralization Plan; reducing unaccounted-for water; and
enhancing Zone 7’s existing in-lieu recharge program. In addition, Zone 7 is evaluating several
major water supply portfolios, which include the Current Plan (i.e., Delta Fix), an In-Valley
Portfolio (i.e., focused on recycled water), and an Intertie Portfolio (i.e., water transfers or
regional desalination).
DSRSD
DSRSD Water Supply Reliability
Zone 7 is DSRSD’s sole potable water supplier. In analyzing the reliability of DSRSD’s potable
water supply, DSRSD calculated the percentage of possible water shortage if Zone 7’s planned
programs and projects are implemented, and if they are not implemented. Without
implementation, Zone 7’s customers will experience water supply shortages. All of Zone 7’s
customers, including the water retailers in the Livermore Amador Valley, are assumed to
proportionally share the impacts of the shortages. DSRSD’s potable water supply reliability for
Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years is shown on Tables B, C, and D. Each Table
analyzes two scenarios: (1) Zone 7 planned projects and programs are implemented; and (2)
Zone 7 planned projects and programs are not implemented.
In Table 4.4-3 DSRSD’s potable water demand is compared to Zone 7’s water supply during a
Normal water year. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented, DSRSD
anticipates no water supply shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are
not implemented, DSRSD anticipates shortage of approximately 3 percent starting 2030. A slight
increase in shortage is expected by 2035; however, the water shortage remains under 4 percent.
Table 4.4-3. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Normal Year (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply
Totals(a)
12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs NOT Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply
Totals(a,b)
12,900 16,000 17,500 17,711 17,857
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -589 -643
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 124
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%-3.32% -3.60%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%-3.22% -3.48%
Recycled Water
DSRSD Supply Totals(c) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0% 0%0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0% 0%0%
Includes DSRSD’s 645 af/yr GPQ pumped by Zone 7 and blended with Zone 7’s other water supply sources. Rounded up to nearest
100 af.
Assumes that water supply shortage is shared equally amongst water retailers supplied by Zone 7.
Recycled water from DSRSD’s RWTF.
In Table 4.4-4, DSRSD’s potable water demand is compared to Zone 7’s water supply during a
Single Dry water year. In a Single Dry water year, Zone 7 makes use of its stored water
distributed between the local groundwater basin and the banking programs in Kern County.
Overall, Zone 7 water demands are lower for the year because water demand that is normally for
groundwater storage banking is not included in the water demands in a Single Dry water year. If
Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented, DSRSD anticipates no water supply
shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are not implemented, DSRSD
anticipates a shortage of approximately one percent starting 2035.
Table 4.4-4. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-Single Dry Year (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a) 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs NOT Implemented
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals(a,b) 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,128 18,326
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -172 -174
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%-1% -0.95%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%-1% -0.94%
Recycled Water
DSRSD Supply Totals(c) 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0%0%0%0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0%0%0%0% 0%
(a) INCLUDES DSRSD’S 645 AF/YR GPQ PUMPED BY ZONE 7 AND BLENDED WITH ZONE 7’S OTHER WATER SUPPLY SOURCES.
ROUNDED UP TO NEAREST 100 AF.
(b) ASSUMES THAT WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE IS SHARED EQUALLY AMONGST WATER RETAILERS SUPPLIED BY ZONE 7.
(c) RECYCLED WATER FROM DSRSD’S RWTF.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 125
In Table 4.4-5, DSRSD’s potable water demands are compared to Zone 7’s water supply during
Multiple Dry water year events. If Zone 7’s planned programs and projects are implemented,
DSRSD anticipates no water supply shortage. However, if Zone 7’s planned programs and
projects are not implemented, water shortages may occur as follows:
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2025, DSRSD will receive 100
percent of its total potable demand in the first year, 100 percent of its total potable
demand in the second year, and 72 percent of its total potable water demand (28
percent water shortage) in the third year;
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2030, DSRSD will receive 98
percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year,
100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total
potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year;
• For a Multiple Dry water year event that starts in 2035, DSRSD will receive 98
percent of its total potable water demand (2 percent water shortage) in the first year,
100 percent of its total potable demand in the second year, and 69 percent of its total
potable water demand (31 percent water shortage) in the third year.
Zone 7 plans to implement programs and projects to meet its customers’ demands in Multiple
Dry water years. However, if Zone 7 is unable to implement those programs and projects,
DSRSD may have to implement its Water Shortage Contingency and Drought Plan, as described
below.
Table 4.4-5. DSRSD Water Supply & Demand Comparison-
Multiple Dry Years (AF)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Implemented
Multiple dry year
first year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
second year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals1 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Zone 7 Planned Projects & Programs Not Implemented
Multiple dry year
first year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
12,900 16,000 17,500 17,994 18,133
DSRSD Demand Totals 12,900 16,000 17,500 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 -306 -367
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% -1.70% -2.02%
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 126
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Potable Water
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% -1.67% -1.98
Multiple dry year
second year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
DSRSD Demand Totals 13,500 16,300 17,700 18,300 18,500
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
Zone 7 Water Supply Totals
1,2
14,800 16,900 12,880 12,620 12,676
DSRSD Demand Totals 14,800 16,900 18,000 18,400 18,500
Difference 0 0 -5,120 -5,780 -5,824
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% -39.8 -45.8% -45.9%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% -28.4 -31.4% -31.5%
Recycled Water
Multiple dry year
first year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,500 3,800 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
second year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 2,800 3,900 4,400 4,500 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 2,800 3,900 4,400 4,500 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Multiple dry year
third year supply
DSRSD Supply Totals 3 3,300 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,600
DSRSD Demand Totals 3,300 4,200 4,500 4,600 4,600
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Difference as % of Supply 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Difference as % of Demand 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1 INCLUDES DSRSD’S 645 ACRE-FT/YEAR GPQ PUMPED BY ZONE 7 AND BLENDED WITH ZONE 7’S OTHER
WATER SUPPLY SOURCES. ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST 100 ACRE-FT.
2 ASSUMES THAT WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGES IS SHARED EQUALLY AMONGST WATER RETAILERS SUPPLIED BY
ZONE 7. SEE APPENDIX O FOR DETERMINATION OF SHORTAGES.
3 RECYCLED WATER FROM DSRSD’S RWTF.
Source: DSRSD Water Supply Reliability Plans
DSRSD has developed plans to address water reliability issues and potential future water
shortages. These include a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and a Drought Plan and Demand
Management Measures.
The Water Shortage Contingency Plan addresses events that cause a serious interruption in the
normal water supply, including, but not limited to, drought, earthquake, major power outages,
and similar events. The Contingency Plan establishes four stages to address water supply
shortages:
A Stage 1 Level is to be implemented when there is a reasonable probability of less-
than-expected water delivery to DSRSD in the next few years. A voluntary 5% or
greater water cut-back is requested.
A Stage 2 Level is to be implemented when there is a reasonable probability of less-
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 127
than-expected water delivery in the upcoming year. A voluntary or mandatory 15%
or greater water cut-back is imposed.
Stage 3 Level would be triggered if normal water supplies to DSRSD are reduced in
the current year. A Stage 3 Level triggers a 30% or greater water cut-back.
A Stage 4 Level would be imposed when water shortage conditions have been in
effect and water reduction targets imposed under Stages 1 through 3 have not been
achieved to maintain an adequate water supply or when new events require greater
water conservation efforts. Under a Stage 4 Level, a water cut-back of 50% or more is
mandated by DSRSD.
DSRSD also has adopted Demand Management Measures to reduce water demand through water
conservation measures. DSRSD has been a member of the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (CUWCC) since 1991 and is an original signatory to the Memorandum of
Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (CUWCC MOU). DSRSD
has been implementing various Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation since
1991, and has been submitting biennial reports to the CUWCC since 1992. DSRSD’s water
conservation program includes the Demand Management Measures (DMMs). Its current
conservation efforts and rates were established to address varying hydrological conditions
(droughts) that occur from year to year. Because customers modified their water consumption
behavior when the DSRSD Board of Directors declared Stage 1 water shortage conditions in
2009, DSRSD currently meets and exceeds the 2020 urban water use target of 163 GPCD. The
list of BMPs is set forth in Section 6 of the DSRSD UWMP and is incorporated herein by this
reference.
On January 19, 2014, the DSRSD Board of Directors declared a Community Drought
Emergency and called for a 20% reduction on the amount of water use compared to the same
period in 2013. This includes a 5% reduction in the amount of indoor water use and a 40%
reduction in the amount of outdoor water use. Zone 7 also asked all customers in the Livermore-
Amador Valley to reduce water use by 20 percent due to drought conditions. Zone 7 identified
specific steps that customers could take to reduce water use with reductions in outdoor water use
presenting the greatest opportunity for reductions - http://www.zone7water.com/conservation-
rebates/water-conservation.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to the supply of water to the
Specific Plan area. Mitigation measure 3.5/23.0 addresses possible salinity in the groundwater
basin. Mitigation measures 3.5/24.0–40.0 were adopted to prevent overdraft of ground water
resources by requiring or encouraging annexation and connection to DSRSD; to minimize the
effect of additional demand for water by encouraging water recycling and conservation and by
encouraging the development of new facilities and supplies; and to ensure the development of a
water distribution system by generally preventing development until such facilities are
constructed by developers. Other mitigations (3.5/41.0–43.0) were adopted to deal with the
potential for reservoir failures, the potential for loss of system pressure, and noise from water
system pump stations. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin General Plan and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 128
EDSP would increase demand to serve development at build-out under the then-applicable
general plans and required an additional 25,000 acre-feet annually. Mitigation Measure 3.5/28.0
relied on Zone 7’s planning to acquire additional supplies. Impact 3.5/S found a lack of a water
distribution system and required a “will serve” letter prior to grading permit (mitigation measure
3.5/3.8.0). Impact 3.5/T, Inducement of Substantial Growth, was deemed to be significant even
after mitigation. Upon approval of the GPA/EDSP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this significant unavoidable impact (Resolution No. 53–93).
No supplemental impacts to water resources were analyzed in the IKEA SEIR.
Regulatory framework. Water services to Dublin and the Project site are governed by the
following documents.
Dublin General Plan. The Dublin General Plan includes the Environmental Resources
Management: Water Resources Element. The purpose of this optional Element is to “ensure that
the City’s water resources are sustained and protected and to consolidate information and
policies related to the conservation and management of water resources...” (page 12-1). The
Element contains the following Guiding and Implementing Policies related to water resources.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.1.A: Work with Zone 7 and DSRSD to secure an adequate water
supply for, and provide water delivery to, existing and future customers in Dublin.
• Implementing Policy 12.3.1.B: In anticipated of planned Future growth, continue
working with DSRSD and Zone 7 to plan and provide sufficient water supplies.
• Guiding Policy 12.3.3.A: Promote the conservation of water in new development.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The EDSP includes Goals, Policies and Action Programs
to guide cooperation between the City, the DSRSD and the project developers in providing an
adequate water supply system for all new development in Eastern Dublin (Policy 9-1). Action
Program 9A within the EDSP requires new development projects in the EDSP planning area to
maximize water conservation by using water-conservation devices such as low-flow shower
heads, adhering to DSRSD Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation,
installing water efficient irrigation systems, using native, drought tolerant plant materials and
using recycled water for dust control during individual project construction.
City of Dublin Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City of Dublin adopted a CAP in 2010 and
completed a major update to this document in July 2013. The CAP provides a local inventory of
estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) from the City currently and in the future. The CAP
also includes strategies to be employed by the City to reduce community emissions by 15%
below the 2010 GHG inventory by the year 2020.
The CAP includes specific measures to achieve the emission reduction target. Strategy B.3.1
calls for use of Bay-friendly landscaping in new developments. This strategy includes an
integrated solution to new landscaping that reduced water use, promotes soil health, reduced
green waste, and results in a net reduction of GHG emissions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 129
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.88 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). Chapter 8.88 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires water efficient landscape installations for new construction and
rehabilitated landscapes for both public and private development projects.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project envisions a different development pattern than was assumed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR. This SEIR examines whether water use related to potential
development of the project area might differ significantly from that previously analyzed and
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that water would be available to serve the Project.
Significance criteria. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a significant
impact on water supply and distribution if it were to:
require or result in the need to construct new water facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or
have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources and require new or expanded entitlements or resources.
Under CEQA standards, the EIR must analyze the “reasonable likelihood” that adequate water
supply will be available to serve the Project and other water demand under near-term and long-
term conditions. The “reasonably likely” finding does not require certainty of future water
supplies through signed, enforceable agreements with providers and already built or approved
facilities. An EIR must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood
of the water’s availability. “Paper water,” speculative sources or unrealistic allocations are not
“reasonably likely” sources under CEQA. Uncertainty in the form of competition for identified
water sources is an important point that should be discussed, but it does not necessarily render
development of the planned water supply too unlikely. It is not necessary that the EIR show that
total water supply in the long-term would be sufficient to meet total demand, but a discussion of
total supply and demand is necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of development on
water supply.
A level of uncertainty regarding the availability of water supplies does not require a finding of a
significant impact. However, the EIR must provide decision makers with information to evaluate
the sources of water for the Project and their impacts. The EIR can rely on and incorporate
analysis of the impacts from water sources performed by the water purveyors. The analysis of
replacement or alternative sources is only required if it is impossible to confidently determine
that anticipated future water sources will not be available. As long as an EIR discloses potential
uncertainties and contains substantial evidence demonstrating that water supplies will likely be
available in the future despite uncertainties, an EIR is not required to identify and analyze
alternative water supplies.
Supplemental water use impact. DSRSD UWMP includes demand from the development of a
305,000 square foot retail/commercial project on the project site under the existing City
entitlements. Based on Table 4.4-6 below, this use would require an estimated 30,500 gallons
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 130
per day at full build-out. The proposed project would generate an estimated need for 52,000
gallons of potable water per day, which would be an estimated 21,500 gallons of water per day
greater than anticipated water demand in the DSRSD UWMP. The project would use recycled
water for exterior landscape irrigation and other exterior uses. Therefore, estimated water use
shown in Table E does not include use of potable water for landscape irrigation.
Table 4.4-6. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Water Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Water Use Factor Water Use (GPD)
Approved Use included in DSRSD UWMP
General Commercial 305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Project Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condo/Townhouse 400 DU 120 gpd/DU 48,000 gpd
Est. Water Demand. 52,000 gpd
Difference +21,500 gpd
Source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 4/13/2014
Construction of the proposed project would increase estimated potable water demand by 21,500
gallons per day (24.08 acre feet per year). This is an increase in water demand assumed in the
DSRSD UWMP for Dublin and surrounding communities served by DSRSD and Zone 7. This
amount of water (24.08 afy) constitutes only 0.13% of DSRSD’s long-term potable water supply
of 18,500 afy, and .03% of the lowest annual available water supply of 72,326 afy, contained in
the Zone 7 UWMP.
DSRSD has determined that potable water is available for overall water demand within its
service area, including this Project, until at least 2018 with or without water conservation
measures (2013 Annual Review). The incremental increase in potable water demand is relatively
small and DSRSD does not believe that the increase would have a significant impact on the
District’s ability to provide water supplies to its customers in this area (Source: Stan Kolozdie,
DSRSD, 3/27/14). DSRSD also will not issue construction permits for the proposed Project if
there is not available water, in accordance with DSRSD Code Section 6.2.01. So, the proposed
project will not be allowed to begin construction under DSRSD regulations unless there is
adequate water to serve Project demand. At the time of collection of connection fees and
issuance of a construction permit, a connection to the DSRSD water supply system would be
made and water provided to the project in accordance with DSRSD regulations. Additionally,
Mitigation Measure 3.5/38 in the Eastern Dublin EIR requires a “will-serve” letter from DSRSD
prior to grading permit approval. A “will serve” letter was provided for the previous Ikea project
and new letter will be required for this proposed project in the Conditions of Approval for the
Tentative Map.
Based on the above discussion, adequate water supplies to meet existing and future demand
(including the proposed project) are reasonably likely. Zone 7 has potential greater supply under
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 131
existing contracts and potential new sources of supply are being pursued by Zone 7. DSRSD also
has existing water supplies available under its contract with BMID, and recycled water and
additional conservation measures that could be implemented which could be used to meet project
and cumulative demand. Both Zone 7 and DSRSD have implemented such conservation
measures in response to the current drought.
In addition, a 20% reduction in indoor water use for new development mandated under the State
Green Building Code was not taken into account in the demand estimates under the Zone 7
UWMP and DSRSD UWMP. The State Green Building Code requires a 20% reduction in indoor
water use in new residential development beginning in 2014. This requirement will apply to all
residential building for which building permits are issued after January 1, 2014 and will apply to
the proposed Project. A similar 20% reduction for non-residential development become
mandatory in the 2010 State Green Building Code.
Zone 7 and DSRSD also have current water conservations measures that are in effect during
droughts and may be expanded to address shortages resulting from other causes. Both Zone 7
and DSRSD have programs to address drought conditions during multi-dry year. DSRSD has
specific measures and programs to reduce demand during drought conditions as set forth in its
Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Demand Management Measures described above. Under a
Stage 4 Level, a reduction of 50% or more in water use may be mandated by DSRSD. This
reduction in demand greatly exceeds any projected shortfalls in the DSRSD UWMP.
With regard to the increase in demand for recycled water in the near-term and long-term,
DSRSD has a sufficient supply to meet anticipated demand and has the ability to increase the
supply of recycled water in the future. A recycled water distribution main is located adjacent to
the project property. There is a sufficient supply of recycled water available to serve project and
cumulative demand and a less-than-significant impact would result with regard to recycled water
supply.
Based on the foregoing, water supplies are reasonably likely to be available to serve the proposed
project and existing demand in the near-term, and project and cumulative demand in the long-
term. Therefore, the proposed project impact is less than significant. The project contribution to
any significant cumulative impact is less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than
significant. Since water supplies are reasonably likely, the EIR is not required to analyze
alternative sources of water.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 132
4.5 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides information on the biological resources on The Green project site.
Biological resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area. Further analysis
regarding biological resources was included in the IKEA SEIR.
The purpose of this section is to supplement the Eastern Dublin EIR and the IKEA SEIR in
accordance with CEQA standards.
The following analysis is based on a report dated August 30, 2013, prepared by WRA Biological
Consultants. The WRA report is included as Appendix 8.5 of this SEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project site characteristics. The project site is located in an urban area that consists of a
patchwork of developed commercial and residential areas interspersed with undeveloped, open
areas. Adjacent to the project site to the north and west are private open spaces dominated by
non-native annual grassland and non-native mustards. Adjacent to the east is the Hacienda
Crossings commercial center, and to the south is Interstate 580. A majority of the site is
characterized by non-native annual grassland with occasional stands of non-native mustard. The
site is relatively flat, sloping downward from north to south. The elevation ranges from
approximately 350 feet in the north to approximately 340 feet in the south. The project site has
been graded and some areas have been piled and excavated. As a result, minor topographic
variation occurs, sometimes as obvious depressions and plateaus. Based on satellite imagery
(Exhibit 4.4-1) and existing vegetation, it appears that some limited parts of the site experience
prolonged inundation during part of the year and have the potential to be wetland habitat
The majority of the project site was recently mowed, though no other recent activity is evident.
One building currently exists on the site, which was used for past marketing efforts and will be
removed at the time the site is developed. Ornamental olive trees in containers are located around
the building; most are living but in poor health. Several large piles of debris exist in the western
portion of the site.
Biological communities. Table 4.4-1 summarizes the area of each biological community type
observed in the Project Area. Non-sensitive biological communities in the Project Area include
non-native annual grassland and ruderal herbaceous stands. One potentially sensitive biological
community is found in the project area. Descriptions for each biological community are
contained in the following sections.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 133
Table 4.5-1. Summary of Biological Communities on the Project Site
Community Type Acres
Non-native annual grassland 25.53
Ruderal herbaceous stands 2.26
Potential seasonal wetlands 1.17
Source: WRA, 2013
Non-Sensitive Biological Communities
Non-Native Annual Grassland. Non-native annual grassland typically occurs in open areas of
valleys and foothills throughout California, usually on fine textured clay or loam soils that are
somewhat poorly drained. Non-native grassland is typically dominated by non-native annual
grasses and forbs along with scattered native wildflowers. Non-native annual grassland
comprises the majority of the site and is a mix of grasses and other herbaceous species. Common
species include slender oat (Avena barbata), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]), mouse barley
(Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), stink wort (Dittrichia graveolens) and redstem stork’s bill
(Erodium cicutarium). Coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) is sparsely scattered throughout the
site. Native plant cover is less than 10%.
Ruderal Herbaceous Stands. Ruderal herbaceous stands are located in areas where there has been
recent or repeated disturbance. These communities are dominated by non-native herbaceous
species adapted to growing in conditions of disturbance. Ruderal herbaceous stands dominated
by black mustard (Brassica nigra) occur primarily in the southwest portion of the site on a variety
of topographic features.
Sensitive Biological Communities
Seasonal Wetland. Seasonal wetland plant communities occur in swales and depressions that are
ponded during the rainy season for sufficient duration to support vegetation adapted to wetland
conditions. Seasonal wetlands in California are highly variable in plant composition, depending
on the length of ponding or inundation. There are four potential seasonal wetlands on the site,
totaling 1.17 acres. All appear to exist as a result of past alterations to the landscape, but have
existed long enough to be dominated by plants often found in seasonal wetlands. Typical plant
species observed in potential seasonal wetlands on the site include hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum
hyssopifolia), pygmy willowherb (Epilobium campestre [E. pygmaeum]), doormat knotweed
(Polygonum aviculare [P. arenastrum]), and popcornflower (Plagiobothrys sp.).
Special-Status Species.
Plants. Based upon a review of the resources and databases, 35 special-status plant species have
been documented in the vicinity of the project site. Appendix B (contained in the full biological
analysis, SEIR Appendix 8.7) summarizes the potential for occurrence for each special-status
plant species occurring in the vicinity of the site. One special-status plant species, Congdon’s
tarplant, was observed on the site during the assessment site visit. No other special-status plant
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 134
species have a high or moderate potential to occur on the project site. The remaining species
documented to occur in the vicinity of the site are unlikely, have no potential to occur, or were
not found during the August 1, 2013 survey by WRA. Congdon’s tarplant is discussed below.
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). CNPS Rank 1B.1. Present.
Congdon’s tarplant is an annual forb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that blooms from
June to November. It occurs in terraces, swales, floodplains, grassland, and disturbed sites,
sometimes alkaline, at elevations ranging from 0-990 feet (Baldwin et al. 2012, CDFW 2013,
CNPS 2013). Congdon’s tarplant is known from 31 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in
Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo,
and Solano counties (CNPS 2013). Congdon’s tarplant occurs in abundance on the site. A
few individuals were scattered in the east half of the site, but thousands occurred in the west
half.
Wildlife. Twenty-six special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the vicinity of the
site. Appendix B (contained in the full biological analysis) summarizes the potential for each of
these species to occur on the project site. All of the wildlife species observed in the site are
commonly found species, and many are adapted to occupying disturbed or urban areas. One
special-status wildlife species was observed on the project site during the site assessment. In
addition, there are no special-status wildlife species that have a high potential to occur on the
site, but four special-status wildlife species have a moderate potential to occur on the site.
Special-status wildlife species that were observed or have a moderate potential to occur on the
project site are discussed below.
Present species
White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Present. White-
tailed kite occurs in low elevation grassland, agricultural, wetland, oak woodland, and
savannah habitats. Riparian zones adjacent to open areas are also used. Vegetative structure
and prey availability seem to be more important than specific associations with plant species
or vegetative communities. Lightly grazed or ungrazed fields generally support large prey
populations and are often preferred to other habitats. Kites primarily feed on small mammals,
although, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects are also taken. Nest trees range from single
isolated trees to trees within large contiguous forests. Preferred nest trees are extremely
variable, ranging from small shrubs (less than 10 ft. tall), to large trees (greater than 150 ft.
tall). At the time of the August 2013 site visit, a kite was seen foraging over the site. The
grassland areas on the site provide foraging habitat for this species and the trees planted
along the medians of the roads surrounding the project site may provide nesting habitat
during the breeding season.
Species with moderate potential to occur
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential.
Burrowing owl (BUOW) is a ground-dwelling owl found throughout most of California and
the western United States. In California, it occurs either as a resident or winter visitor.
BUOW inhabit flat, open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub-lands. This species
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 135
prefers annual or perennial grasslands, typically with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub
canopies and short vegetation; however, it also colonizes agricultural and other developed
areas including; debris piles, old pipes, airports, golf courses, vacant lots and agricultural
fields. This species is dependent on burrowing mammals to provide the burrows that are
characteristically used for shelter and nesting, and in northern California is typically found in
close association with California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi). Breeding
typically takes place from March to July.
The project site provides suitable habitat for BUOW, as it contains disked ruderal grassland
with many ground squirrel burrows. Furthermore, the CDFW CNDDB has several recorded
occurrences of BUOW less than two miles from the site, the closest being approximately
0.15 mile north of the site. At the time of the August 2013 site visit, no BUOW or signs of
BUOW (e.g. feathers, pellets, feces, or nest decoration) were observed. However, due to the
habitat suitability and documented occurrences of this species nearby, there is a moderate
potential for burrowing owl to move into and occur on the site.
Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). California Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential.
Pallid bat is found from southern British Columbia and Montana to central Mexico, and east
to Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Roosts are typically in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines,
caves, and a variety of man-made structures, including vacant and occupied buildings. Tree
roosting has been documented and they have also been reported roosting in stacks of burlap
sacks and stone piles. Pallid bat may use the marketing building on the site to roost, and may
forage within the site, giving the species a moderate potential to occur in the site.
Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii).CDFW Species of Special Concern.
Moderate Potential. This species ranges throughout western North America, from British
Columbia to central Mexico. It is typically associated with caves but is also found in man-
made structures, including mines and buildings. This bat may forage over the site and use the
building on the site to roost, thus having a moderate potential to occur on the project site.
Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). BLM Sensitive Species. Moderate Potential. Yuma myotis
is found throughout most of California at lower elevations in a wide variety of habitats. Day
roosts are found in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges, and rock crevices. Night roosts
are usually associated with buildings, bridges or other man-made structures. The existing
marketing building on the site may provide night roosting habitat and the bat may use the site
for foraging. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for Yuma myotis to occur on the site.
Listed species unlikely to occur. Federally listed species that are documented to occur within the
vicinity of the site include:
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federal Endangered Species. San Joaquin kit
fox is found in the San Joaquin Valley and in surrounding foothills, from Alameda County
east to Stanislaus County. It is a desert-adapted species which occurs mainly in arid, flat
grasslands, scrublands, and alkali meadows where the vegetation structure is relatively short
(generally less than 1.5 feet tall). This species uses dens year-round and needs loose-textured
soils suitable for burrowing. Kit fox prey consists primarily of kangaroo rats and other small
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 136
rodents, as well as large insects and occasionally rabbits. San Joaquin kit fox has been
extirpated from much of its historic range and is now only found in the southern and eastern
portions of its historic range and a study by Sproul and Flett indicates that the species is
absent west of the Altamont Hills, which includes the project site.
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). Federal Threatened Species. California red-
legged frog (CRLF) occurs in isolated localities in the Sierra Nevada, northern Coast and
northern Transverse Ranges but is still common in the San Francisco Bay Area and along the
central coast. CRLF breeding habitat is characterized by dense, shrubby riparian vegetation
associated with deep, still or slow moving water. Estivation and dispersal habitat may consist
of riparian vegetation, presence of small mammal burrows, and continuous connective
stretches of grassland, wetland or oak woodland habitat. On average, CRLF tend to disperse
a mile away from breeding sites. CRLF are unlikely to occur in or around the project site.
The site does not contain any riparian vegetation, and is surrounded by urban development
and surrounded on all sides by paved roads at least 80 feet wide, which act as barriers to
dispersal. There are no apparent accessible breeding features within two miles of the site, and
according to satellite imagery the site has had a history of disturbance and has been graded
multiple times. The nearest CNDDB occurrence of CRLF to the project site is approximately
1.3 miles to the east, and there are several occurrences within four miles. Most of these
occurrences are prior to 2005, when much of the area to the east of the site was undeveloped.
Dense urban development and other land use changes over the past ten years have very likely
decreased the habitat suitability of the immediate area and rendered it much less suitable for
CRLF dispersal. For these reasons, it is unlikely that CRLF will occur on the site or move to
the site.
California tiger salamander (Ambystomacaliforniense). Federal Endangered/State
Threatened Species. California tiger salamander (CTS) inhabits valley and foothill grasslands
and the grassy understory of open woodlands, usually within one mile of water. Currently,
six distinct populations are known to inhabit areas including; the Central Valley and Sierra
Nevada foothills; Yolo County south to Tulare County; and the coastal valleys and foothills
from Sonoma County south to Santa Barbara County. Adult salamanders spend most of their
time underground in upland subterranean refugia, usually in small mammal burrows. During
the first rainfall events of the year, adult CTS emerge and migrate to breed and lay eggs in
ponds, depressional pools, vernal pools and other wetlands. CTS are unlikely to occur on the
project site, as the surrounding roads and development prevent dispersal. As in the case of
CRLF, there are no evident breeding features accessible to CTS within two miles of the site
and the site has already undergone disturbance with repeated grading activities.
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Federal Threatened Species. Vernal pool
fairy shrimp are endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, central coast mountains, and
south coast mountains. They inhabit a variety of different vernal pool habitats, from small,
clear sandstone rock pools to large, turbid, alkaline, grassland valley floor pools. Shrimp can
also be found in natural and artificial wetlands including stock ponds, ditches, and ephemeral
drainages (Helm 1997). This species is unlikely to occur on the site due to the lack of vernal
pool habitat and the area’s history of repeated disking, grading and leveling.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 137
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENTS
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR included a comprehensive assessment of habitat
and wildlife resources in the EIR planning area. The EIR identified potential impacts related to
the general effects of potential development in Eastern Dublin, including direct habitat loss,
indirect habitat loss due to vegetation removal for construction and development activities, and
loss or degradation of sensitive habitat (Impacts 3.7/A, B, and C). The Eastern Dublin EIR also
identified potential impacts related to wildlife species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, CRLF,
CTS, and others (Impacts 3.7/D – S). Raptor electrocutions associated with proposed high-
voltage power lines were addressed in depth in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and included a
number of mitigation measures (MM 3.7/26.0a-d). Mitigation measures were adopted to, among
other things, prepare resource management plans, avoid development in sensitive areas, and
revegetate disturbed areas (generally MM 3.7/1.0 – 28.0). All mitigation measures adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed project.
Even with mitigation, the City concluded that the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically
sensitive habitat was significant and unavoidable. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP,
the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this significant unavoidable
impact (Resolution No. 53-93).
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed cumulative impacts on biological resources within the portions
of Alameda and Contra Costa counties in the general vicinity of the Eastern Dublin area. At that
time, Contra Costa County had an Urban Limit Line that functioned as a growth boundary. That
Urban Limit Line placed all of the Dougherty and Tassajara valleys inside the growth boundary
(i.e., allowing development of those areas), and placed lands to the east of Tassajara Valley and
north of the County line outside the growth boundary. Alameda County had no comparable
growth boundaries; instead, planning for the Alameda County portions of this region was
performed by the cities of Dublin and Livermore.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one significant cumulative biological impact. Impact 3.7/C
identified the continued loss and deterioration of botanically sensitive habitat, particularly
riparian habitat.
IKEA SEIR. The IKEA SEIR identified Supplemental Impact BIO-1, which included potential
impacts to newly-identified biological resources, specifically Congdon’s tarplant, a special-status
plant. No evidence was found at that time that the Congdon’s tarplant species was actually
present on the site so no supplemental mitigation measures were included in the IKEA SEIR.
REGULATORY SETTING
Biological resources are regulated by the following:
Federal Endangered Species Act. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed
wildlife species from harm or “take” which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also
include habitat modification or degradation that directly results in death or injury to a listed
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 138
wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental.
Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species
are legally protected from take under FESA if they occur on federal lands or if the project
requires a federal action, such as a Section 404 fill permit.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened
and endangered species under the FESA. The USFWS also maintains lists of proposed and
candidate species. Species on these lists are not legally protected under the FESA, but may
become listed in the near future and are often included in their review of a project.
California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits
the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare (plants only), threatened, or
endangered. In accordance with the CESA, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) has jurisdiction over state-listed species (California Fish and Wildlife Code Sec. 2070).
Additionally, the CDFW maintains lists of "species of special concern" that are defined as
species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited
ranges, and/or continuing threats.
California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15380(d) of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists of
protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet
certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in FESA and
CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered
plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in
which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that
has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW.
Clean Water Act. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is responsible for
regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the U.S. and
their lateral limits are defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 (a) and include streams that are tributary to
navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not adjacent to waters of the U.S.
are termed “isolated wetlands” and, depending on the circumstances, may not be subject to Corps
jurisdiction.
California Water Quality and Waterbody Regulatory Programs. Pursuant to Section 401 of
the federal Clean Water Act, projects that are regulated by the Corps must obtain water quality
certification from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the project will uphold state water
quality standards. The RWQCB may impose mitigation requirements even if the Corps does not.
Isolated wetlands that are not jurisdictional under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act are
considered waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Act. Discharge of fill into waters of the
State is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements as issued by the RWQCB.
The CDFW exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to
provisions of Section 1601 to 1603 of the Fish and Wildlife Code. The Fish and Wildlife Code
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 139
requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material within the bed and
banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 703) prohibits killing, possessing, or
trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Most
native bird species in the project area are covered by this Act.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-governmental conservation organization,
has developed lists of plant species of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these
lists are defined as follows:
List 1A Plants considered extinct.
List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory
protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet CEQA’s
Section 15380 criteria and adverse effects to these species are considered significant.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in Alameda County
and although as a private development project it is technically not subject to the EACCS
guidance, permitting agencies will utilize the guidance and policies contained in the EACCS to
analyze the project. Conservation goals and objectives are described in Chapter 3 of the Final
EACCS. There are multiple objectives listed in the Conservation Strategy; here are some
objectives that apply directly to the project Area:
Goal 1: Protect and enhance natural and semi‐natural landscapes that are large enough to
accommodate natural processes beneficial to populations of native species.
Objective 1.1: Protect a range of environmental gradients (such as slope, elevation, aspect)
across a diversity of natural communities within the conservation zones.
Objective 1.2: Protect riverine systems and hydrologic function within the study area through
protection and management of terrestrial land covers, streams, ponds, and
wetlands across all watersheds of the study area.
Goal 4: Protect and enhance functional grassland communities (alkali meadow and scald,
California annual grassland, non‐serpentine native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine
bunchgrass grassland, rock outcrop, valley sink scrub) that benefit focal species and promote
native biodiversity.
Objective 4.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of native grasslands
and create a refined map that better accounts for mapped stands.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 140
Goal 8: Improve the overall quality of riparian communities and the hydrologic and geomorphic
processes that support them to increase the amount of riparian habitat for focal species and
promote native biodiversity.
Objective 8.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of riparian forest and
scrub stands and create a refined map that reflects species composition, key
riparian community attributes, and conservation opportunities at the stream
reach level.
Objective 8.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on riparian forest and scrub communities
during project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project
activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3‐2 and 3‐3
of the EACCS.
Goal 9: Improve the overall quality of wetlands (perennial freshwater marsh, seasonal wetland,
alkali wetland); ponds; and their upland watersheds to maintain functional aquatic communities
that benefit focal species and promote native biodiversity.
Objective 9.1: Field verify the Conservation Strategy land cover map of seasonal and
perennial wetlands and create a refined map that reflects habitat quality and
restoration opportunities.
Objective 9.2: Avoid or minimize direct impacts on wetland or pond communities during
project construction and indirect impacts that result from post-project
activities by implementing avoidance measures outlined in Table 3‐2 and 3‐3
of the EACCS.
The Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance (City of Dublin Municipal Code Sec. 5.60) states that
preservation of existing trees is beneficial to the health and welfare of the City. Tree removal
permits are required under this section for removal of heritage trees, which are defined in the
ordinance.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria. The project’s impacts to biological resources would be considered
significant if the project results in the actions or outcomes listed below. These significance
criteria are based on the CEQA Guidelines’ (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3) recommended tools for
determining the potential for significant environmental effects, including the model Initial Study
checklist (Appendix G of the Guidelines) and mandatory findings of significance (Guidelines
sec. 15065). The proposed project would have a significant supplemental impact on biological
resources if the following impacts have the potential to occur but were not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the IKEA SEIR, or are substantially more severe than analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the IKEA SEIR:
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 141
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat
modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS;
• Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means;
Supplemental Impacts. The proposed project is expected to develop the entire site. Therefore,
the project would permanently impact all of the approximate 27.5 acres of habitat on the site and
may impact special-status plants, nesting and/or wintering burrowing owls, and nesting birds
protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. For each of the potential impacts
identified, the following avoidance, minimization, and compensatory measures are
recommended. Supplemental mitigation measures SM-BIO-3 (Burrowing Owls) are identified
below to update and clarify EDSP mitigation measures in light of current biological regulatory
requirements.
Impacts to jurisdictional waters. Construction of the proposed project would result in disturbance
of the entire site and filling of a small amount of seasonal wetlands that could be potentially
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State. If wetlands are present on the site,
this would be a significant supplemental impact.
Supplemental Impact BIO-1 (wetland and other waters). The proposed project would
result in the fill of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State
(significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Implementation of the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The supplemental mitigation
measure requires that if jurisdictional waters are identified on the site and cannot be avoided as
part of the development, compensatory wetlands shall be secured so that no net loss of wetlands
will occur.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (wetland and other waters). The applicant
shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading plan for the site:
a) A wetlands delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these
jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory mitigation
shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or
acreages. In such an eventuality, a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and
implemented that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site
wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established
in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar mechanism)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 142
to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the
long-term management of the site. If wetlands are determined to be jurisdictional
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the mitigation plan will be subject to the
review and approval of the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). If the potential seasonal wetlands are non-jurisdictional under Section
404, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and approval of the RWQCB.
Impacts to special-status plant species. The proposed project could impact special-status plant
species on the site, specifically Congdon’s tarplant.
Supplemental Impact BIO-2 (impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other special-status plant
species). Approval and construction of the proposed project would impact Congdon’s
tarplant and other special-status plant species on the site (significant supplemental impact
and mitigation required).
Implementation of the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a
less-than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The supplemental mitigation
measure requires acquisition and preservation of suitable off-site habitat for special-status plant
species prior to site development.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other
special-status plant species). Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted
on the site consistent with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s 2009 Protocols
for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural
Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period
throughout the blooming period of those special-status for which suitable habitat is
present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of
plants listed in Table 4.4-1. If populations/stands of a special-status species are identified
during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation shall be
provided, such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the
species in question, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits
for the affected species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation
organization (e.g.. a local land trust) for the preservation and management of existing
populations. The location of mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with and
subject to approval of US Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish
& Wildlife. In the case where special-status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the
lead agency shall approve the mitigation approach using the guidance provided by the
Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy in consultation with the City’s consulting
biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1
(acquired:impacted). For off-site mitigation options, measures shall be implemented
(including contingency measures) providing for the long-term protection of these species.
Burrowing Owls. The proposed project could impact nesting and/or wintering habitat for
burrowing owl. This impact was identified as Impact 3.7/M.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 143
Supplemental Impact BIO-3 (impacts to burrowing owls). The proposed project could
impact the habitat for nesting or wintering burrowing owl by disturbing the existing
ground surface (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts to burrowing
owl to a less-than-significant level. However, adherence to the following supplemental
mitigation measure provides enhanced mitigation that is consistent with current California
Department of Fish and Wildlife standards whereas EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 is
no longer consistent with these standards. The following measure requires completion of a pre-
construction survey for burrowing owl and, if found, implementation of either an exclusion zone
around nests or development of an exclusion plan with protective buffers. With adherence to the
following mitigation measure, this impact will be less-than-significant.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (impacts to burrowing owls). Preconstruction
surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to grading or construction activities.
These surveys should conform to the survey protocol established in the Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). The Conservation Strategy depicts the project
site as being located in Conservation Zone 2, which supports 11 percent of the
Conservation Strategy’s study area’s unprotected potential habitat for burrowing owl).
Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site’s approximate 13 acres of
ruderal/disturbed non-native grassland habitat and within the suitable grassland habitat
adjacent to the site. The following measures are consistent with the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist
shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls are found
during this first survey, a final survey will be conducted within 48 hours prior to
ground disturbance to confirm that burrowing owls are still absent. If ground
disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial
take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including the final survey within
48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted in accordance with
California Department of Fish & Wildlife guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be
implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish &
Wildlife standards. More specifically, if the surveys identify breeding or wintering
burrowing owls on or adjacent to the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed
and shall be provided with protective buffers. Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a plan that
considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing of
the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the
proposed activity with background activities) shall be implemented to encourage
owls to move away from the work area prior to construction and to minimize the
potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall be
subject to California Fish & Wildlife approval and monitoring requirements.
Compensatory mitigation could also be required by California Fish & Wildlife as
part of the approval of an exclusion plan. Mitigation may include the permanent
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 144
protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife.
Impacts to breeding birds. The proposed project could impact nesting birds on the site.
Supplemental Impact BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Construction of the proposed
project could impact breeding birds on the site (significant supplemental impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following will reduce impacts to breeding birds that may nest on or
immediately adjacent to the site to a less-than-significant level by requiring prohibiting project
construction during the nesting season. If this cannot be met, a preconstruction survey for nesting
birds shall be completed and, if found, it will be necessary to establish a protective buffer around
identified nests.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Vegetation
removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during the non-breeding
season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will occur from February 1
to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted no more
than 14 days prior to construction. Any active nests found shall be protected by a minimum
50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer size may vary depending on bird species, the location
of the nest, and other factors.
Impacts to bats. Three special-status bat species have a moderate potential of occurring on the
project site by using the existing marketing building on the site for roosting and/or foraging in
the area. The marketing building is capable of supporting bat roosts. If special status bat species
roosts are present, project development may impact these species either through direct removal
of roosts or nearby disturbance. In addition, an increase in night lighting during the construction
phase of the project may result in disturbance to bat movement and behavior and may be a
potential indirect impact. Loss of potential bat roosts would constitute a significant impact. Bat
foraging habitat on a regional scale is not expected to be significantly impacted by the project.
Supplemental Impact BIO-5 (impacts to special-status bats). Construction of the proposed
project could impact special-status bats that could inhabit the site, specifically the removal
of the existing building (significant supplemental impact and mitigation required).
Adherence to the following will reduce impacts to potential bats on the site by removing the
potential bat habitat at a time when it is not likely to be occupied.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (impacts to special-status bats). The
marketing building shall be removed from the premises during September or October. Pre-
construction surveys of the marketing building for bats shall occur no more than 30 days
before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate
relocation plan consistent with US Fish & Wildlife, California Department of Fish &
Wildlife and EACCS standards and policies.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 145
Cumulative impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that direct habitat loss of implementing the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Impact IM 3.7/A) and loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3.7/C) to be cumulative biological resource
impacts. The proposed project is located within the Eastern Dublin planning area and would
disturb approximately 27.5 acres of vacant land within this area. No new or more severe impacts
with respect to cumulative biological impacts would occur than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. No cumulatively considerable biological resource impacts were identified in the IKEA
SEIR.
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 146
Ta
b
l
e
4
.
5
-
2
—
Pl
a
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
O
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
D
u
r
i
n
g
a
S
i
t
e
V
i
s
i
t
o
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
1
,
2
0
1
3
Fa
m
i
l
y
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
In
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
St
a
t
u
s
Ra
r
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Or
i
g
i
n
Form
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Ac
m
i
s
p
o
n
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
s
va
r
.
am
e
r
i
c
a
n
u
s
[
L
o
t
u
s
p
u
r
s
h
i
a
n
u
s
va
r
.
p
.
]
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
l
o
t
u
s
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
Am
s
i
n
c
k
i
a
sp
.
fi
d
d
l
e
n
e
c
k
N
L
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Er
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
Ar
b
u
t
u
s
u
n
e
d
o
st
r
a
b
e
r
r
y
t
r
e
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
t
r
e
e
Ap
o
c
y
n
a
c
e
a
e
[A
s
c
l
e
p
i
a
d
a
c
e
a
e
]
As
c
l
e
p
i
a
s
f
a
s
c
i
c
u
l
a
r
i
s
Me
x
i
c
a
n
m
i
l
k
w
e
e
d
F
A
C
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Av
e
n
a
b
a
r
b
a
t
a
sl
e
n
d
e
r
o
a
t
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ba
c
c
h
a
r
i
s
p
i
l
u
l
a
r
i
s
ss
p
.
c
o
n
s
a
n
g
u
i
n
e
a
co
y
o
t
e
b
r
u
s
h
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
s
h
r
u
b
Br
a
s
s
i
c
a
c
e
a
e
Br
a
s
s
i
c
a
n
i
g
r
a
bl
a
c
k
m
u
s
t
a
r
d
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Br
o
m
u
s
d
i
a
n
d
r
u
s
ri
p
g
u
t
b
r
o
m
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Br
o
m
u
s
h
o
r
d
e
a
c
e
u
s
so
f
t
c
h
e
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ca
r
d
u
u
s
p
y
c
n
o
c
e
p
h
a
l
u
s
It
a
l
i
a
n
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ce
n
t
a
u
r
e
a
s
o
l
s
t
i
t
i
a
l
i
s
ye
l
l
o
w
s
t
a
r
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ce
n
t
r
o
m
a
d
i
a
p
a
r
r
y
i
ss
p
.
co
n
g
d
o
n
i
i
[He
m
i
z
o
n
i
a
p
.
ss
p
.
c
.
]
Co
n
g
d
o
n
'
s
t
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
F
A
C
R
a
n
k
1
B
.
2
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ci
r
s
i
u
m
v
u
l
g
a
r
e
bu
l
l
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
u
s
a
r
v
e
n
s
i
s
fi
e
l
d
b
i
n
d
w
e
e
d
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Co
r
t
a
d
e
r
i
a
sp
.
Pa
m
p
a
s
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Co
n
v
o
l
v
u
l
a
c
e
a
e
[C
u
s
c
u
t
a
c
e
a
e
]
Cu
s
c
u
t
a
o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
[
C
.
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
va
r
.
b
r
e
v
i
f
l
o
r
a
]
we
s
t
e
r
n
d
o
d
d
e
r
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
v
i
n
e
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Di
t
t
r
i
c
h
i
a
g
r
a
v
e
o
l
e
n
s
st
i
n
k
w
o
r
t
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
El
y
m
u
s
t
r
i
t
i
c
o
i
d
e
s
[
L
e
y
m
u
s
t
.
]
be
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
w
i
l
d
r
y
e
F
A
C
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
On
a
g
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ep
i
l
o
b
i
u
m
b
r
a
c
h
y
c
a
r
p
u
m
an
n
u
a
l
w
i
l
l
o
w
h
e
r
b
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
On
a
g
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ep
i
l
o
b
i
u
m
c
a
m
p
e
s
t
r
e
[
E
.
p
y
g
m
a
e
u
m
]
py
g
m
y
w
i
l
l
o
w
h
e
r
b
O
B
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ge
r
a
n
i
a
c
e
a
e
Er
o
d
i
u
m
c
i
c
u
t
a
r
i
u
m
re
d
s
t
e
m
s
t
o
r
k
'
s
b
i
l
l
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Pa
p
a
v
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Es
c
h
s
c
h
o
l
z
i
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
p
o
p
p
y
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Eu
p
h
o
r
b
i
a
c
e
a
e
Eu
p
h
o
r
b
i
a
s
e
r
p
e
n
s
[
C
h
a
m
a
e
s
y
c
e
s
.
]
ma
t
t
e
d
s
a
n
d
m
a
t
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
/
D
r
a
f
t
S
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
E
I
R
Ci
t
y
o
f
D
u
b
l
i
n
M
a
y
2
0
1
4
Page 147
Fa
m
i
l
y
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
a
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n
N
a
m
e
In
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
St
a
t
u
s
Ra
r
i
t
y
St
a
t
u
s
Or
i
g
i
n
Form
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Fe
s
t
u
c
a
m
y
u
r
o
s
[
V
u
l
p
i
a
m
.
v
a
r
.
m
.
]
ra
t
t
a
i
l
f
e
s
c
u
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Fe
s
t
u
c
a
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
s
[
L
o
l
iu
m
m
u
l
t
i
f
l
o
r
u
m
;
L.
p
e
r
e
n
n
e
]
It
a
l
i
a
n
r
y
e
g
r
a
s
s
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Ap
i
a
c
e
a
e
Fo
e
n
i
c
u
l
u
m
v
u
l
g
a
r
e
fe
n
n
e
l
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Rh
a
m
n
a
c
e
a
e
Fr
a
n
g
u
l
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
c
a
[
R
h
a
m
n
u
s
c
.
]
co
f
f
e
e
b
e
r
r
y
N
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
e
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
s
h
r
u
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
He
l
m
i
n
t
h
o
t
h
e
c
a
e
c
h
i
o
i
d
e
s
[
P
i
c
r
i
s
e
.
]
br
i
s
t
l
y
o
x
-
t
o
n
g
u
e
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Ho
r
d
e
u
m
m
u
r
i
n
u
m
s
s
p
.
l
e
p
o
r
i
n
u
m
mo
u
s
e
b
a
r
l
e
y
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Co
r
t
a
d
e
r
i
a
s
p
.
Pa
m
p
a
s
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
l
i
l
o
t
u
s
s
p
.
sw
e
e
t
c
l
o
v
e
r
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
La
c
t
u
c
a
s
e
r
r
i
o
l
a
pr
i
c
k
l
y
l
e
t
t
u
c
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ly
t
h
r
a
c
e
a
e
Ly
t
h
r
u
m
h
y
s
s
o
p
i
f
o
l
i
a
hy
s
s
o
p
l
o
o
s
e
s
t
r
i
f
e
O
B
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ma
l
v
a
c
e
a
e
Ma
l
v
a
n
i
c
a
e
e
n
s
i
s
bu
l
l
m
a
l
l
o
w
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ma
l
v
a
c
e
a
e
Ma
l
v
e
l
l
a
l
e
p
r
o
s
a
al
k
a
l
i
m
a
l
l
o
w
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
d
i
c
a
g
o
p
o
l
y
m
o
r
p
h
a
bu
r
m
e
d
i
c
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Me
l
i
l
o
t
u
s
s
p
.
sw
e
e
t
c
l
o
v
e
r
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Ph
a
l
a
r
i
s
m
i
n
o
r
li
t
t
l
e
s
e
e
d
c
a
n
a
r
y
g
r
a
s
s
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Bo
r
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
Pl
a
g
i
o
b
o
t
h
r
y
s
s
p
.
po
p
c
o
r
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
Po
l
y
g
o
n
u
m
a
v
i
c
u
l
a
r
e
[
P
.
a
r
e
n
a
s
t
r
u
m
]
do
o
r
y
a
r
d
k
n
o
t
w
e
e
d
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
na
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Po
a
c
e
a
e
Po
l
y
p
o
g
o
n
m
o
n
s
p
e
l
i
e
n
s
i
s
ra
b
b
i
t
'
s
-
f
o
o
t
g
r
a
s
s
F
A
C
W
--
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
m
i
n
o
i
d
Po
l
y
g
o
n
a
c
e
a
e
Ru
m
e
x
c
r
i
s
p
u
s
cu
r
l
y
d
o
c
k
F
A
C
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
Ad
o
x
a
c
e
a
e
[C
a
p
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
c
e
a
e
]
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s
n
i
g
r
a
s
s
p
.
c
a
e
r
u
l
e
a
[
S
.
me
x
i
c
a
n
a
]
bl
u
e
e
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
d
e
c
i
d
u
o
u
s
s
h
r
u
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
Si
l
y
b
u
m
m
a
r
i
a
n
u
m
mi
l
k
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
f
o
r
b
As
t
e
r
a
c
e
a
e
So
n
c
h
u
s
a
s
p
e
r
s
s
p
.
a
s
p
e
r
pr
i
c
k
l
y
s
o
w
t
h
i
s
t
l
e
F
A
C
U
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Fa
b
a
c
e
a
e
Tr
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
h
i
r
t
u
m
ro
s
e
c
l
o
v
e
r
N
L
-
-
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
Pl
a
n
t
a
g
i
n
a
c
e
a
e
[S
c
r
o
p
h
u
l
a
r
i
a
c
e
a
e
]
Ve
r
o
n
i
c
a
p
e
r
e
g
r
i
n
a
ss
p
.
x
a
l
a
p
e
n
s
i
s
ne
c
k
w
e
e
d
O
B
L
-
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
n
u
a
l
f
o
r
b
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.5-1
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
SOURCE: WRA Environmental Consultants, 8/19/2013.
Map Date: August 2013
Map By: Chris Zumwalt
Base Source: ESRI Streaming 5/12/10
"The Green" Mixed
Use Project
Alameda County,
California
.
0 130 26065
Feet
"The Green"
Biological Communities
8/19/13
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23055\gis\ArcMap\Figure Bio Communities.mxd
Legend
Study Area
Non-native annual grassland = 25.53 acres
Ruderal herbaceous stand = 2.26 acres
Potential seasonal wetland = 1.17 acres
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.5-2
CONGDON’S TARPLANT LOCATIONS
SOURCE: WRA Environmental Consultants, 8/19/2013.
Map Date: August 2013
Map By: Chris Zumwalt
Base Source: ESRI Streaming 5/12/10
"The Green" Mixed
Use Project
Alameda County,
California
.
0 120 24060
Feet
"The Green" Rare
Plant Map
8/19/13
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23055\gis\ArcMap\Figure Congdons Tarplant.mxd
Legend
Study Area
Congdon's tarplant population = 6.81 acres
!(Congdon's tarplant individuals
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 150
4.6 NOISE
INTRODUCTION
Noise impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This supplement
examines whether any changes in the proposed project would result in new or substantially more
significant impacts that were not identified in the previous EIRs.
This DSEIR section is based on a project specific noise study prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin
dated April 15, 2014 and the full text is included in Appendix 8.8 of the DSEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental noise fundamentals. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a
rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually
measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of
hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 4.6-1.
Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but
rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities
of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify
environmental sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with
a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and
extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the
decibel level so measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a
sound source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter
corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment
and in industry are shown in Table 4.6-2 for different types of noise.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at
any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise
includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady
background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying
character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are
commonly used. They are the A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%,
50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely
used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time.
In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference
in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior
background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. However, most household noise
also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at
night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime
noise levels, a descriptor, DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL
divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM
to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 151
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includes
both an evening and nighttime weighting.
Table 1 contained in Appendix 8.8 contains definitions of terminology used in this SEIR.
Updated noise environment. The project site is located north of Interstate 580 (I-580) in
Dublin, California. The project site is bounded by Martinelli Way to the north, Hacienda Drive to
the east, Interstate 580 to the south, and Arnold Road to the west. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
completed a series of noise measurements to quantify existing ambient noise levels. The noise
monitoring survey consisted of two long-term noise measurements; LT-1 was made from
Wednesday, May 8th to Friday, May 10th, 2013 and LT-2 was made from Thursday, May 16th
to Tuesday, May 21st, 2013. Two short-term (10-minute) noise measurements were also made to
complete the survey. Noise monitoring locations are shown on Exhibit 4.6-1 and long-term
measurement data are shown in Appendix A of the full noise analysis (see Appendix 8.8).
The proposed project location is currently an undeveloped, vacant property with one small
modular office building; currently a vacant, existing commercial building that would be
relocated with the development of the project. Noise-sensitive residential land uses are located
northeast of the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection, approximately 750 feet from
the site. Existing hotel (which is considered a sensitive noise receptor) and commercial land uses
are located east of Hacienda Drive. The noise environment in the site vicinity results primarily
from vehicle traffic along Interstate 580, and local traffic along Hacienda Drive and Dublin
Boulevard, and operations associated with the existing commercial land uses near the site.
Site LT-1 was located near the southwest corner of the project site, 230 feet from the center of I-
580. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels from traffic noise along
I-580. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 74 to 76 dBA Leq during the day,
dropping to a low of 66 dBA Leq at night. The 24-hour average Community Noise Equivelant
Level at this location was 79 dBA CNEL.
Site LT-2 was located near the northwest corner of the project site, near the intersection of
Arnold Road and Martinelli Way, 75 feet from the center line of Martinelli Way and 50 feet from
the center of Arnold Road. This location was selected to quantify the daily trend in noise levels
near the northern portions of the project site. The primary noise source during the measurement
was traffic on Arnold Road and Martinelli way. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged
from 61 to 66 dBA Leq during the weekday daytime hours, dropping to a low of 55 dBA Leq at
night. The Community Noise Equivelant Level at this location ranged from 67 to 69 dBA CNEL
for the weekdays and was 65 dBA CNEL during the weekend.
Two short-term noise measurements were also made in order to quantify the variation in noise
levels at receptors near the project site. Site ST-1 was located 100 feet west of the center of
Arnold Road, and 140 feet south of Dublin Boulevard. The 10-minute average noise level
measured between 12:10 p.m. and 12:20 p.m. was 65 dBA Leq.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 152
Site ST-2 was located approximately 60 feet from the center of Martinelli Way and 150 feet from
the center of Hacienda Boulevard. Noise levels were measured from 12:30 p.m. to 12:40 p.m.,
yielding an average noise level of 61 dBA Leq.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The State of California and the City of Dublin establish guidelines, plans, and policies designed
to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G
and the policies contained in the Noise Element of the City of Dublin General Plan are used as
significance criteria in the impact assessment. Applicable criteria are as follows:
State CEQA Guidelines. The significance of environmental noise impacts resulting from a
proposed project are evaluated based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines. For purposes of this project, CEQA asks the following applicable questions. Would
the project result in:
1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
3. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
CEQA does not define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. Project-
generated noise level increases of 3 dBA CNEL or greater are considered significant where
exterior noise levels would exceed the normally acceptable noise level standard (60 dBA CNEL
for residential and hotel land uses). Where noise levels would remain at or below the normally
acceptable noise level standard with the project, noise level increases of 5 dBA CNEL or greater
are considered significant.
City of Dublin General Plan. Dublin’s Plan identifies noise and land use compatibility
standards for community noise environments. Table 4.6-1 shows that noise levels at retail and
commercial office land uses should normally not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL threshold, that motel
and hotel land uses should not normally exceed 60 dBA CNEL, and that residential land uses
should normally be less than 60 dBA CNEL.
Table 4.6-1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Motels, hotels 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80
Schools, churches,
nursing homes
60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
Neighborhood parks 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
Offices: retail
commercial
70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9.1
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 153
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS CEQA DOCUMENTS
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant
impacts related to noise. These include:
IM 3.10/A (Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise) identified future vehicular
traffic associated with development proposed in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as potentially
significant to future residents of Eastern Dublin. This impact would be mitigated to a level of
insignificance through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0 that requires acoustic studies
for all future residential development in the Eastern Dublin area.
IM 3.10/B (Exposure of Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise) would be a potentially
significant impact to residents in the Eastern Dublin area as development occurs in accord with
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. This impact would be reduced
through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/2.0, which required future development projects
to provide noise protection to existing residential uses in Eastern Dublin; however, noise impacts
to existing residents along Fallon Road would remain significant and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/C (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Development to Airport Noise)
Was considered an insignificance impact and no mitigation was required.
IM 3.10/D (Exposure of Proposed Residential Development to Noise from Future Military
Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail) identified
potentially significant noise for future residents within 6000 feet of Parks RFTA. This impact
would be reduced through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.10/3.0 that requires acoustic
studies for development near Parks RFTA for the Alameda County Government facility;
however, reduction of noise from Parks RFTA may not be feasible, so this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.
IM 3.10/E (Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to Construction Noise) would be a
potentially significant impact related to noise associated with construction of the proposed
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan improvements, including but not limited to buildings, roads, and
utilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce construction noise
impacts to a level of insignificance through preparation and submittal of Construction Noise
Management Plans and compliance with local noise standards.
IM 3.10/F (Noise Conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan
Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development) would result from close proximity of different
land use types that may result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.10/6.0
requires the preparation on noise management plans for all mixed-use developments within the
Eastern Dublin area. This measure would reduce noise generated by mixed-use development to a
level of insignificance.
IKEA SEIR. The topic of noise was not analyzed in this document.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 154
All of these impacts and mitigation measures would apply to the currently proposed project.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The project proposes to construct a mixed-use center on the site, which would include up to 400
residential units and up to 40,000 square feet of commercial space. The commercial space would
include up to 5,000 square feet of retail space and up to 35,000 square feet of restaurant space.
The retail space would typically be located on the ground floor, with multi-family residential
units above. The conceptual site plan shows residential uses in the eastern, western, and southern
portion of the site, with commercial uses in the center portion of the site. A trail is proposed
along the southern boundary of the site.
Based on the Initial Study, there is the potential for potentially significant impacts that could
expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of City standards due to vehicular traffic
and other noise sources such as truck unloading. These development level impacts are identified
below.
Significance criteria. The following standards of significance are used to assess potential
impacts related to noise:
Noise and Land Use Compatibility. A significant noise impact would occur if land use areas
proposed as part of the project would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the applicable noise
standards presented in the General Plan.
For retail and commercial land uses, exterior noise levels of 70 dBA CNEL or less are
considered normally acceptable, between 71 -75 dBA are considered conditionally
acceptable, between 76 – 80 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 80 dBA
CNEL are clearly unacceptable.
For residential land uses, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL or less are considered
normally acceptable, between 61-70 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable,
between 71-75 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable, and above 75 dBA CNEL are
clearly unacceptable. The interior noise standard for residential dwellings shall be at or
below 45 dBA CNEL.
For neighborhood parks, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL or less are considered
normally acceptable, between 61-65 dBA are considered conditionally acceptable,
between 66-70 dBA CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 70 dBA CNEL are
clearly unacceptable.
Substantial Permanent Noise Increases. The impact would be considered significant if traffic or
commercial noise sources generated by the project would:
cause the CNEL to increase by 5 dBA or more but remain below the normally
acceptable noise threshold (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, 70 dBA CNEL for
commercial uses);
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 155
cause the CNEL to increase by 3 dBA or more and exceed normally acceptable noise
threshold.
Significant Supplemental Impacts. The proposed project would introduce new noise sensitive
uses into an area where noise levels are in excess of City standards. In addition, project
operations could generate noise levels that could exceed City standards at project residences.
Based on a comparison of existing and future traffic volumes from the project’s traffic study, a
noise increase of about 2 dB above existing levels is calculated to occur by 2030 assuming future
plus project traffic conditions, due primarily to cumulative traffic volume increases along I-580.
Existing + Project conditions would not measurably increase noise levels at the site above
Existing conditions, as project traffic would add only a very small volume percentage of vehicles
to existing traffic on the freeway. The project itself is expected to add 200 peak hour trips in
both the a.m. and p.m. hours, which would result in noise increase of less than 3 dB, which is the
threshold of significance. Preliminary Year 2030 traffic noise contours, which indicated the
‘worst case’ traffic noise scenario, were calculated using SoundPLAN 7.0, a three-dimensional
noise modeling software (shown in Exhibit 4.6-2).
Noise and Land Use Compatibility of Residential Exterior Use Areas. The results of the noise
modeling are shown in Exhibit 4.6-2. As indicated in this exhibit, exterior use areas located in
well-shielded portions of the site would achieve the 60 dBA CNEL standard for residential uses.
However, the proposed trail location would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL “normally acceptable”
standard for residential outdoor use areas and for neighborhood parks. Mitigation options are
limited for exterior land uses nearest I-580 because of the high noise levels generated by traffic.
Portions of the proposed trail, which is adjacent to I-580, noise levels would exceed 80 dBA
CNEL without mitigation. Although it is not desirable from an aesthetic point of view, a sizable
noise barrier (e.g. 14 feet or less in height), constructed on the project site, was examined and it
was concluded that it would not provide enough attenuation for exterior noise levels areas along
the proposed trail to achieve the 60 dBA CNEL standard.
A 14 foot high barrier, located along the site’s southern boundary, would reduce noise levels
along the proposed trail by only 8 to 10 dB, would reduce noise levels at ground level first row
southern facing residential facades by only 3 to 4 dB, and would reduce noise levels at upper
stories and in partially shielded or well shielded areas by 1 dB or less. Even with the
construction of a barrier, trail users would still be exposed to noise levels exceeding 70 dBA
CNEL, which would be considered “normally unacceptable” for residential outdoor use areas
and “clearly unacceptable” for neighborhood parks. However, the trail does not clearly fall into
either of these land use categories in that it is a secondary outdoor use and there are several other
areas on site that residents have access to for outdoor enjoyment that achieve the 60 dBA CNEL
“normally acceptable” standard for residential uses.
Noise and Land Use Compatibility of Project Residential Interiors. Interior noise levels within
new residential units are required to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. Residential
buildings throughout much of the project site would be exposed to future exterior noise levels
greater than the normally acceptable exterior standard of 60 dBA CNEL, with some exterior
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 156
levels exceeding 80 dBA CNEL without mitigation. Exterior levels at residential facades would
exceed the normally acceptable residential criteria in much of the site and would fall into the
clearly unacceptable category in some areas. However, with use of site planning, architectural
layout (placing bedrooms away from I-580 for example), and construction modifications, interior
noise levels could be maintained below the 45 dBA CNEL interior threshold, as described below.
The highest future noise exposures would occur nearest Interstate 580. Upper level residences
would typically be exposed to noise levels that are about 1 dBA higher than ground level
residences (indicated in Exhibit 4.6-2) due to the lack of ground absorption between the traffic
noise source and the receptor location. Interior noise levels would vary depending on the final
design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and construction materials and
methods. Standard residential construction provides approximately 15 dBA of exterior to interior
noise reduction assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction
with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior
spaces.
In exterior noise environments ranging from 60 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL, interior noise
levels can typically be maintained below City standards with the incorporation of an adequate
forced air mechanical ventilation system in each residential unit. Preliminary calculations
indicate that this measure would be applicable to the northern portion of the site, adjacent to
Martinelli Way, in the northeastern and northwestern portions of the site, adjacent to Hacienda
Drive and Arnold Road, but well shielded from I-580, and in well shielded areas in the southern
central portion of the site. It is assumed that standard thermal-pane residential windows/doors
with a minimum rating of STC 28 would be installed in these residences.
In exterior noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL or greater, a combination of forced-air
mechanical ventilation and sound-rated construction methods is often required to meet the
interior noise level limit. Attaining the necessary noise reduction from exterior to interior spaces
is readily achievable in noise environments less than 75 dBA CNEL with proper wall
construction techniques, the selection of proper windows and doors, and the incorporation of
forced-air mechanical ventilation systems. Preliminary calculations show that it is likely that
windows/doors with ratings of STC 30 to 40 would be required in noise environments of 75 dBA
CNEL or less. This measure would be applicable to partially shielded areas in the south central
portion of the site.
In exterior noise environments exceeding 75 dBA CNEL, the construction materials and
techniques necessary to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable levels become more expensive
and difficult to implement. Noise insulation features such as stucco-sided staggered-stud walls
and high STC-rated windows and doors (STC 36 to 42) would likely be required for first-row
receptors adjacent to I-580. First-row residences would also need to be equipped with a full
heating and air-conditioning system because it is unlikely residents would open their windows
for ventilation.
On-site commercial uses would be located in the north central portion of the site and would be
exposed to noise levels within the normally acceptable range (70 dBA CNEL or less).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 157
Project Residential Noise Compatibility with Proposed Retail and Restaurant Operational Noise.
The project would introduce new sources of noise into the existing noise environment. Typical
noise sources would include rooftop heating ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment
and truck deliveries to the site. Since the site is surrounded primarily by undeveloped land, these
operational noise sources would not impact existing noise sensitive uses in the project vicinity.
However, noise levels generated by commercial operations could generate noise levels in excess
of the Noise and Land Use Compatibility guidelines at project residences.
Noise impacts resulting from HVAC systems can vary considerably depending on the equipment
selected, the system design, and the location of the equipment relative to the noise sensitive use.
Noise levels from commercial HVAC systems are typically in the range of 60 to 70 dBA Leq at a
distance of 15 feet. Maximum instantaneous noise levels generated by delivery trucks are
generally in the range of 60 to 70 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. In the southernmost portion
of the site, adjacent to Interstate 580, HVAC and delivery truck noise would not generally be
distinguishable from traffic noise. However, depending on the time of day that deliveries occur,
noise generated by commercial delivery activities and HVAC systems could annoy residential
land uses that are located in well shielded areas in the northernmost portion of the site. In some
portions on the project site, residential uses and commercial uses are separated by 40 feet.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-1 (noise and land use compatibility). Residential land uses
proposed by the project could be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL
and interior noise levels exceeding 45 dBA CNEL (potentially significant supplemental
impact).
Mitigation options are limited for residential land uses nearest Interstate 580 because of the high
noise levels generated by traffic. With the current site plan, noise levels in centrally and northern
located outdoor common use areas are well shielded from I-580 and would achieve the 60 dBA
CNEL normally acceptable standard for residential uses. Reasonable height noise barriers,
constructed on the project site, would not provide enough attenuation for exterior noise levels
along the proposed trail to achieve the 60 dBA CNEL “normally acceptable” standard for
residential outdoor use areas and neighborhood parks. However, all residents would have access
to outdoor use areas in the central portion of the site which would achieve the 60 dBA CNEL
normally acceptable standard.
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measures will mitigate this impact to a less-
than-significant level by ensuring that the final design and location of project mechanical
equipment would not result in noise exposure exceeding City standards for noise sensitive uses.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 (noise and land use compatibility).
Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive areas of the project to meet City
standards. To meet City noise standards, the following mitigation shall be used:
Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580. Ensure that all
residents have access to outdoor use areas that achieve exterior noise criteria (60
dBA CNEL for residential uses).
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 158
A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local
building official, shall be provided for units throughout the site, so that windows can
be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control interior noise and achieve the
interior noise standards.
For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be designed
to have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations facing the freeway.
For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to achieve the 45
dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated windows and doors shall be
provided to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Additional treatments
may include, but are not limited to, sound rated wall construction, acoustical
caulking, insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors should be
oriented away from the I-580 where possible. Bedrooms should be located away
from I-580.
The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the project to ensure that
exterior and interior noise levels on site achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise
standard for residential uses and hourly average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for
commercial uses. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary
interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along
with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be reviewed by
a qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that operational noise levels would not
exceed 60 dBA CNEL at exterior project residential uses and would not exceed 45
dBA CNEL inside these residences. If needed, the final design and location of
mechanical equipment shall be modified to conform with noise parameters set forth
in this analysis.
A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial portion of
the project site, which would include the proposed hours of allowable deliveries and
the locations and routes of the delivery trucks on the project site. A qualified
acoustical consultant shall review the delivery plan to ensure that interior and
exterior noise levels on site achieve acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan and
acoustical consultant report shall be subject to approval by the City prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial building.
Noise from increased vehicle project trips. The development of the project will cause an increase
in vehicular traffic on the street network. An increase is considered to be a significant impact if
project related traffic were to cause the CNEL to increase by 5 dBA or more but remain below
the normally acceptable noise threshold (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses, 70 dBA CNEL for
commercial uses), or cause the CNEL to increase by 3 dBA or more and exceed the normally
acceptable noise threshold. The noise exposure levels along roadways in the vicinity of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 159
project were evaluated to determine whether or not the increased volumes of vehicular traffic
would cause a significant increase in the noise environment. Twenty five intersections were
analyzed. Traffic noise along a street is logarithmically proportional to the volume of traffic.
Traffic data was reviewed along roadways expected to be serving the project to calculate
potential traffic noise level increases attributable to the project. Based on the traffic volume data
developed for this study, traffic noise levels along most roadways in the project vicinity are
anticipated to increase by less than 1 dBA CNEL above existing conditions as a result of the
project (existing + project conditions). Noise levels from traffic increases are calculated to
increase by 3 to 4 dBA CNEL along Arnold Road, between Martinelli Way and Dublin
Boulevard, and on Martinelli Way, west of Hacienda Drive. Both of these roadway segments are
adjoined by undeveloped lands and there are no noise sensitive land uses along either roadway
segment. Under Future 2035 + Project conditions, traffic noise increases are calculated to be less
than 1 dB above Future 2035 conditions. The increase in noise levels would not exceed 3 dBA
CNEL at sensitive receivers adjacent to the project site and the impact is less-than-significant.
Cumulative Impacts. The project site is located in a primarily undeveloped area. Based on the
traffic volume data developed for this study, Year 2035 traffic noise levels along all of the
studied roadways in the project vicinity are anticipated to increase by less than 3 dBA CNEL as
a result of the project. As a result, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.
Construction noise impacts or operational noise impacts resulting from the project would not
combine with noise from other projects in the vicinity, or increased noise levels resulting from
the general growth of the area, to increase the severity of project noise impacts as discussed
above. Based on the findings of the site-specific acoustic analysis, no supplemental noise
impacts are anticipated.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.6-1
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
Exhibit 4.6-1. Noise Measurement Locations
LT-2
LT-1
ST-2
ST-1
Project Site
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2014.
CITY OF DUBLIN
THE GREEN PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR)
Exhibit 4.6-2
2030 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS
FOR GROUND LEVEL RECEPTORS
Exhibit 4.6-2. 2030 Traffic Noise Contours for Ground Level Receptors
SOURCE: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2014.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 162
4.7 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION
Air quality impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since the project
requires an amendment to the City General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to allow new
land uses, this supplement to the EIR examines the potential air quality impacts of these new
land uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background. The project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air
quality standards have been established at both the State and Federal level. The Bay Area meets
all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate
matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions
to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of
the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. Highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in
the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone
levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase
coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the Bay Area. Particulate matter is
assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter
of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of
2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both
region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels
aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g.,
lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
The ambient air quality in a given area depends on the quantities of pollutants emitted within the
area, transport of pollutants to and from surrounding areas, local and regional meteorological
conditions, as well as the surrounding topography of the air basin. Air quality is described by the
concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally
expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Dublin is located in
the San Ramon Valley, where wind speeds rank as some of the lowest in the Bay Area. Air
temperatures are cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer because these valleys are further
from the moderating effect of large water bodies, and because the Coast Range blocks marine air
flow. During the summer, average daily maximum temperatures in the San Ramon/Tri-Valley
region are in the high 80's to 90 degrees. Average minimum temperatures in winter are in the low
to mid 40's. Shielded by the Coast Range to the west, rainfall amounts in the San Ramon/Tri-
Valley region are relatively low.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 163
Pollution potential is significant in these valleys. In the winter, light winds at night, coupled with
a surface-based inversion and terrain blocking to the east and west does not allow much
dispersion of pollutants. San Ramon Valley with its very narrow width could easily have
pollution buildups from emissions contributed by the major freeway in its center, and by
emissions from fireplaces and wood stoves. In the summer months, ozone can be transported into
the valleys from both the Central Valley and the central Bay Area.
National and state ambient air quality standards. As required by the Federal Clean Air Act,
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six major air
pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter,
including respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur oxides,
and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has established the
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Relevant Current State and Federal
standards are summarized in Table 4.7-1. CAAQS are generally the same or more stringent than
NAAQS.
Air Quality Monitoring Data. The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by
comparing the concentration to an appropriate ambient air quality standard. The standards
represent the allowable pollutant concentrations designed to ensure that the public health and
welfare are protected, while including a reasonable margin of safety to protect the more sensitive
individuals in the population. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest
metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality conditions at more than 20 locations
throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is in Livermore at the
793 Rincon Avenue monitoring station. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is provided
in Table 4.7-2. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations measured at the station
over the five-year period from 2008 through 2012. Note that BAAQMD discontinued monitoring
of carbon monoxide in 2009. These data show that ozone levels exceeded State or Federal
standards each year over the past five years. The PM2.5 24-hour standard was exceeded in 2008
and 2009.
Ambient Air Quality Status. Areas with air pollutant levels that exceed adopted air quality
standards are designated as “nonattainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. Nonattainment
areas are sometimes further classified by degree (marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and
extreme for ozone, and moderate and serious for carbon monoxide and PM10) or status
(“nonattainment-transitional”). Areas that comply with air quality standards are designated as
“attainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. “Unclassified” areas are those with insufficient
air quality monitoring data to support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, but are
generally presumed to meet the ambient air quality standard. State Implementation Plans must be
prepared by states for areas designated as federal nonattainment areas to demonstrate how the
area will come into attainment of the exceeded federal ambient air quality standard. The Bay
Area is considered a marginal nonattainment area for ozone under the NAAQS and
nonattainment for ozone under the CAAQS (both 1- and 8-hour standards). The Bay Area is also
designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Bay Area is also considered
nonattainment for the State annual PM2.5 standard and the 24-hour PM10 standard. The region is
designated attainment or unclassified for all other ambient air quality standards.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 164
Table 4.7-1. Relevant California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standards National Standards
Ozone
8-hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(147µg/m3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3)
—
Carbon
monoxide
1-hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen
dioxide
1-hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
0.100 ppm
(188 µg/m3)
Annual 0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide 1-hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3)
24-hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(365 µg/m3)
Annual —0.03 ppm
(56 µg/m3)
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Annual 20 µg/m3 —
24-hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-hour —35 µg/m3
Source: BAAQMD and EPA, 2013.
Notes: ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Table. 4.7-2. Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations at Livermore Station
Pollutant
Average
Time
Measured Air Pollutant Levels
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.141 ppm 0.113 ppm 0.150 ppm 0.115 ppm 0.102 ppm
8-Hour 0.111 ppm 0.086 ppm 0.098 ppm 0.085 ppm 0.090 ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 1.4 ppm 1.3 ppm ND ND ND
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 0.058 ppm 0.052 ppm 0.058 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.057 ppm
Annual 0.013 ppm 0.012 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm 0.011 ppm
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
24-Hour 46.8 ug/m3 ND ND ND ND
Annual ND ND ND ND ND
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour 52.7 ug/m3 45.7 ug/m3 34.7 ug/m3 23.6 ug/m3 31.1 ug/m3
Annual 10.1 ug/m3 9.2 ug/m3 7.6 ug/m3 7.8 ug/m3 6.5 ug/m3
Source: CARB, 2012.
Notes: ppm = parts per million and ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard.
ND = No data.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 165
Sensitive Receptors. There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following persons who are most
likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people
with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive
receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups
include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools,
and parks. The closest sensitive receptors are residences located to the north and south of the
project site over 1,000 feet away. La Petite Academy school is located approximately 1,400 feet
north of the project site.
Toxic Air Contaminants. Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known
to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer). TACs are found in ambient
air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and
commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even
near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can
result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and Federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-
quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the CARB,
diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes
the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the
chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified
as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the state's Proposition 65 or
under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources
to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Several of these regulatory programs
affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from
California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule,
in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008,
CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing
on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.12 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet
specific performance requirements between 2012 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles
required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased
in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.
BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the
region. At the State level, CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency)
oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD
published CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality
impacts of projects.13
Greenhouse Gases. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic-
12 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: July 31, 2012.
13 BAAQMD, 2011. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 166
generated (generated by humankind) atmospheric gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases
(GHG). Solar radiation enters the earth's atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is
absorbed at the surface. The earth emits this radiation back toward space as infrared radiation.
Greenhouse gases, which are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, are effective in
absorbing infrared radiation and redirecting some of this back to the earth's surface. As a result,
this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a
warming of the atmosphere. This is known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect helps
maintain a habitable climate. Emissions of GHGs from human activities, such as electricity
production, motor vehicle use and agriculture, are elevating the concentration of GHGs in the
atmosphere, and are reported to have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's natural
climate, known as global warming or global climate change. The term "global climate change" is
often used interchangeably with the term "global warming," but "global climate change" is
preferred because it implies that there are other consequences to the global climate in addition to
rising temperatures. Other than water vapor, the primary GHGs contributing to global climate
change include the following gases:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2), primarily a byproduct of fuel combustion;
• Nitrous oxide (N2O), a byproduct of fuel combustion; also associated with agricultural
operations such as the fertilization of crops;
• Methane (CH4), commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g.
livestock), wastewater treatment and landfill operations;
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were used as refrigerants, propellants and cleaning solvents,
but their production has been mostly prohibited by international treaty;
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are now widely used as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons
in refrigeration and cooling; and
• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions are commonly created
by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), a term developed
to compare the propensity of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another GHG.
GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared
radiation and the length of time of gas remains in the atmosphere. The GWP of each GHG is
measured relative to CO2. Accordingly, GHG emissions are typically measured and reported in
terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). For instance, SF6 is 22,800 times more intense in terms of
global climate change contribution than CO2.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 167
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts related to construction, mobile source and
stationary source emissions (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Mitigation measures were adopted to
control construction dust and exhaust emissions, and to minimize mobile and stationary source
emissions through, among other things, cooperative transportation and air quality planning and
transportation demand management. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP continue to apply to implementing actions and projects such as the
proposed Project. Even with mitigation, however, significant cumulative construction, mobile
source and stationary source impacts remained. (Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, E). Upon approval of the
Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
significant unavoidable impacts. (Resolution No. 53-93.)
The topic of greenhouse gas emissions was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed General Plan and Specific Plan amendment would change land uses and
development intensity from those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Potential supplemental
impacts of the proposed project are analyzed below in accordance with CEQA standards.
Significance criteria. The following standards have been used to assess potential impacts related
to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
• Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
• Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.
This assessment is based on BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA thresholds. BAAQMD’s adoption of its
2010 thresholds have been challenged in the lawsuit of California Building Industry Association
v. BAAQMD which is pending before the California Supreme Court (Supreme Court Case No.
S213478). The Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether CEQA requires the
analysis of the impacts of the environment on the project. The Court of Appeal decision upheld
BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds. The issue pending before the Supreme Court is not
directly related to the scientific basis of BAAQMD’s analysis of what levels of pollutants should
be deemed significant. The scientific and evidentiary basis supporting the BAAQMD CEQA
Thresholds are set forth in the studies and documents in BAAQMD’s record for adoption of the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 168
thresholds, including, but not limited to, the Options and Justification Report (dated October
2009) prepared by BAAQMD. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (Thresholds of
Significance) the City exercise its own discretion to use the significance thresholds in the
BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA thresholds based on substantial evidence contained in BAAQMD’s
record for adoption of the thresholds (which is relied on and incorporated herein).14 Accordingly,
this assessment uses the 2010 thresholds and methodologies from BAAQMD’s May 2011 CEQA
Air Quality Guidelines to determine the potential impacts of the project on the existing
environment. The significance thresholds used in this analysis are based on BAAQMD
standards and are summarized in Table 4.7-3.
Table 4.7-3. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 82 15
PM2.5 54 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour avg.) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour avg.)
Fugitive Dust Best Management
Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources and Receptors
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 10 per one million
Hazard Index 1.0 1.0
Incremental annual
average PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.3 µg/m3
Health Risks and Hazards for Sensitive Receptors (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000 foot
zone of influence) and Cumulative Thresholds for New Sources
Excess Cancer Risk 100 per one million
Chronic Hazard Index 10.0
Annual Average PM2.5 0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions
(Annual)
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or
1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons per capita
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an
aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less; and GHG = Greenhouse gases.
Source: BAAQMD, 2010 and 2011.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following significant supplemental air quality impacts and mitigation measures are
identified in this DSEIR.
Contribution to cumulatively considerable air pollutants. The Bay Area is considered a non-
attainment area for ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both the Federal
Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for
14 BAAQMD. 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Update Proposed Thresholds of Significance. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 169
respirable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10)
under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal act. The area has attained both State and
Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 was used to predict
emissions from construction and operation of the site assuming full build out of the project. The
project land use types and size, and trip generation rate were input to CalEEMod.
Construction period emissions. CalEEMod provided annual emissions for construction.
CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-
site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activity
includes worker and vendor traffic. As a balanced site, no substantial hauling of soils is expected.
A construction build-out scenario, including CalEEmod default equipment list and phasing
schedule for a project of this type and size was used. No cranes are expected for use and, since
temporary line power is expected to be available, no generators were modeled. Attachment 1 (see
Appendix 8.9) includes the CalEEMod output for construction emissions.
The proposed land uses were input into CalEEMod, 35,000 square feet (s.f.) “High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant),”5,000 s.f. “Strip Mall,” or other retail, and 400 dwelling units
“Condo/Townhouse.”
The modeling scenario assumes that the project would be built out over a period of
approximately 26 months beginning in Spring of 2014, or an estimated 575 construction
workdays. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions
by the number of construction days. Table 4.7-4 shows average daily construction emissions of
ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in
Table 4.7-4, predicted project emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds.
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading would temporarily
generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include
disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless
properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be
an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day
to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather
conditions. Fugitive dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind
speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source,
while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 170
Table 4.7-4. Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2014 Construction emissions (tons)0.49 tons 4.00 tons 0.22 tons 0.20 tons
2015 Construction emissions (tons)0.55 tons 3.21 tons 0.20 tons 0.18 tons
2016 Construction emissions (tons)3.47 tons 1.10 tons 0.07 tons 0.06 tons
Average daily emissions (pounds)1 15.7 lbs.28.9 lbs.1.7 lbs.1.5 lbs.
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per
day)
54 lbs.54 lbs.82 lbs.54 lbs.
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1 Assumes 575 workdays.
Although EDSP EIR air quality Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 provides specific methods for
reduction of fugitive dust from construction sites, the BAAQMD has adopted updated measures
to further reduce construction level impacts. Therefore, the project applicant shall adhere to
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1, which shall replace EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 (construction period air emissions). The
project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures as recommended by
the BAAQMD, which shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 171
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
With adherence to the above supplemental mitigation measure, construction period air quality
impacts will be less-than-significant.
Operational Period Emissions. Operational air emissions from the project would be generated
primarily from autos driven by future residents, customers, employees and delivery trucks.
Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products are other typical
emissions from commercial uses. CalEEMod was used to predict emissions from operation of the
site assuming full build out of the project. The project land use types and size, and trip
generation rate were input to CalEEMod. Adjustments to the model are described below. Model
output worksheets are included in Attachment 1(see Appendix 8.9).
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control
technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the
model, the higher the emission rates CalEEMod uses. The earliest full year the residential portion
of the project could possibly be constructed and be occupied would be 2017. Use of this date is
considered conservative, as emissions associated with build-out later than 2017 would be lower.
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific trip generation rates. Kittelson & Associates, Inc.,
provided trip generation rates for the project by land use type, which were entered into the
model. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., also provided specific pass-by trip rates (5 percent for the
restaurants and 5 percent for the Other Retail) for the project, internal trip reduction, and a
walking trips to BART reduction (5 percent), which were input to the model.
The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. This includes customer
trip length of 7.3 miles per one-way trip.
Table 4.7-5 reports the predicted average daily operational emissions and Table 4.7- 6 reports
annual emissions. As shown in Tables 4.7-5 and 4.7-6, average daily and annual emissions of
ROG, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions associated with operation would not exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds. However, NOX, emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance
thresholds, which would be a significant impact.
Table 4.7-5. Daily Air Pollutant Emissions
from Operation of the Project (pounds/day)
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2017 Project 36.0 68.2 30.0 8.88
Daily Emission Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 172
Table 4.7-6. Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from
Operation of the Project (tons/year)
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.30 0.04 0.02 0.02
Energy 0.09 0.80 0.06 0.06
Mobile 4.18 11.61 5.39 1.54
Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2017 Project 6.6 12.5 5.5 1.6
Annual Emission Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-1 (emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants
during project operation). The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under
applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards due to emissions of NOX
(Significant and Unavoidable supplemental impact).
Site-specific land use features that could reduce vehicle emissions were also input to the model,
including the approximate number of intersections per square miles (influencing walkability) and
accessibility to nearby transit. Emissions reductions from these specific site features are included
in the mitigated emissions output, by the nature of the CalEEMod air model. Results of modeling
indicate that consideration of these site-specific features would reduce operational NOX
emissions to 11.4 tons annually, which would still be significant.
The following measure is recommended to partially reduce the above impact.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 (emission of cumulative considerable air
pollutants during project operation). The project applicant shall reduce future residential
and employee trips through a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program approved by
the City and including, but not limited to, the following measures:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for
the project including program development, information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional
transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees
and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The Village” property to
the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels,
511.org, and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend and
distribute commute alternative information.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 173
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F)
of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for
qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per
month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to reduce
evaporative ROG emissions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 from the IKEA SEIR shall also be implemented.
Considering that 78 full-time employees are anticipated, this accounts for about 7 percent of
future expected service population of the project (future full-time employees plus residents –
1,080 residents are expected based on 2.7 persons per dwelling unit, as indicated by the project
applicant). However, even with the TDM program in place, it is not certain that annual NOX
emissions would be reduced below 10 tons per year because it is not possible at this time to
accurately quantify possible emissions reductions. Similarly, it is not possible to quantify
possible emissions reductions from residential uses. A TDM program has not yet been proposed
and would likely only affect a small amount of the overall project trips. Of the retail-related trips,
only a small percentage is from employee commute, which a TDM program would be most
effective in controlling. Therefore, even with the TDM program in place, operational NOX
emissions could still exceed the established significance thresholds. Because the vast majority of
NOX emissions will be from mobile sources, and it is not possible to quantify potential emissions
reductions from implementation of a TDM program at this time, this impact would remain
Significant and Unavoidable.
Violation of air quality standards. As discussed above, the project would have operational
NOX emissions that exceed the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD. Therefore, the
project would contribute substantially to existing or projected violations of those standards.
Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the pollutant of
greatest concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the
greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Air pollutant
monitoring data indicate that carbon monoxide levels have been below State and Federal
standards in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as
attainment for the standard. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in Livermore that
measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest measured level over any 8-hour
averaging period during the last 5 years is less than 2.0 parts per million (ppm), compared to the
ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. BAAQMD screening guidance indicates that projects
would have a less than significant impact to carbon monoxide levels (including potential
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 174
localized hotspots) if project traffic projections indicate traffic levels would not increase at any
affected intersection to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. The intersections affected by the
proposed project would have much lower traffic volumes (less than 10,000 vehicles per hour
including the project, based on the project traffic analysis). Therefore, the change in traffic
caused by the proposed project would be minimal and the project would not cause or contribute
to a violation of an ambient air quality standard. However, because operation of the project
would exceed significance thresholds for NOX, as discussed above, the project would contribute
substantially to existing and future violations of ozone ambient air quality standards. This impact
is considered Significant and Unavoidable.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would
result in a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation (Significant and Unavoidable supplemental
impact)
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially, but not fully,
mitigate the above impact and Supplemental Impact AQ-2 will remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
Conflict with applicable air quality plan. The most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan) that was adopted by BAAQMD in September 2010. This plan
addresses air quality impacts with respect to obtaining ambient air quality standards for non-
attainment pollutants (i.e., ozone and particulate matter or PM10 and PM2.5), reducing exposure
of sensitive receptors to TACs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions such that the region can
meet AB 32 goals of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Emissions of non-attainment
criteria air pollutants are addressed above.
The consistency of the proposed project with the Clean Air Plan is primarily a question of
whether or not a project would attain air quality standards (i.e., result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment
under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards). The proposed project would not
substantially affect traffic forecasts adversely and, as discussed in the traffic chapter, projected
trips due to project implementation would be less than those approved for the current use per the
Year 2035 Dublin Model. However, as discussed above, implementation of the project would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards;
therefore, the project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because the project would not
support the Clean Air Plan’s goal of attaining air quality standards.
For informational purposes, project consistency with the Clean Air Plan control measures are
summarized below.
Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures. The CAP includes emissions control
measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or
indirectly. The control measures are divided in to five categories that include:
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 175
measures to reduce stationary and area sources;
mobile source measures;
transportation control measures;
land use and local impact measures; and
energy and climate measures
In developing the control measures, BAAQMD identified the full range of tools and resources
available, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to address emissions. Implementation of each
control measure will rely on some combination of the following:
Adoption and enforcement of rules to reduce emissions from stationary sources, area
sources, and indirect sources;
Revisions to BAAQMD’s permitting requirements for stationary sources;
Enforcement of CARB rules to reduce emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines;
Allocation of grants and other funding by the Air District and/or partner agencies;
Promotion of best policies and practices that can be implemented by local agencies
through guidance documents, model ordinances, etc.;
Partnerships with local governments, other public agencies, the business community,
non-profits, etc.;
Public outreach and education;
Enhanced air quality monitoring;
Development of land use guidance and CEQA guidelines, and Air District review and
comment on Bay Area projects pursuant to CEQA; and
Leadership and advocacy.
This approach relies upon lead agencies to assist in implementing some of the control measures.
A key tool for local agency implementation is the development of land use policies and
implementing measures that address new development or redevelopment in local communities.
The consistency of the proposed General Plan amendment is evaluated with respect to each set of
control measures.
Stationary and Area Source Control Measures. The CAP includes Stationary Source Control
measures that BAAQMD adopts as rules or regulations through their authority to control
emissions from stationary and area sources. The BAAQMD is the implementing agency, since
these control measures are applicable to sources of air pollution that must obtain District permits.
Any new stationary sources would be required to obtain proper permits through BAAQMD.
However, no new stationary sources are proposed as part of the project. In addition, the City uses
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to evaluate air pollutant emissions from new
sources.
Mobile Source Measures. The CAP includes Mobile Source Measures that would reduce
emissions by accelerating the replacement of older, dirtier vehicles and equipment through
programs such as the BAAQMD’s Vehicle Buy-Back and Smoking Vehicle Programs, and
promoting advanced technology vehicles that reduce emissions. The implementation of these
measures relies heavily upon incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the
Transportation Fund for Clean Air, to achieve voluntary emission reductions in advance of, or in
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 176
addition to, CARB requirements. CARB has new regulations that require the replacement or
retrofit of on-road trucks, construction equipment and other specific equipment that is diesel
powered. However, these measures are not directly applicable to the proposed project.
Transportation Control Measures. The CAP includes transportation control measures (TCMs)
that are strategies meant to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle
idling, or traffic congestion for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. While most of
the TCMs are implemented at the regional level (e.g., by MTC or Caltrans), there are measures
that the CAP relies upon local communities to assist with implementation. In addition, the CAP
includes land use measures and energy and climate measures where implementation is aided by
proper land use planning decisions. The City’s General Plan, along with the Climate Action
Plan,15 include measures to reduce vehicle travel that are generally consistent with the CAP
TCMs.
Land use and Local Impact Measures- TAC Exposure. The CAP includes measures to reduce
TAC exposure to sensitive receptors. The City, as Lead CEQA Agency, uses the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Thresholds to identify significant risks and develop appropriate mitigation
measures.
Energy and Climate Measures. Supplemental Impact AQ-5 addresses energy and climate issues
with the proposed project. The City has adopted a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, or
Climate Action Plan, that addresses the Clean Air Plan’s control measures regarding energy and
climate.
Table 4.7-7 lists the relevant Clean Air Plan policies to the project indicates compliance or non-
compliance with the policies.
Table 4.7-7. Project Consistency with Applicable Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Control Measure Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
TCM B-2: Improve Transit Efficiency and Use Partially consistent. The project’s proximity to the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and associated transit
facilities would result in increased transit use. However,
the project should implement a TDM program that
would include measures such as a BART subsidy
program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rates to all employees.
TCM C-1: Support Voluntary Employer-Based Trip
Reduction Program
Inconsistent. The project should implement a TDM
program that would include measures such as a
commuter tax benefit program (e.g., WageWorks) or
equivalent on qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs
and a rideshare program, such as Ridematch, Guaranteed
Ride Home, Wheels/LAVTA, shuttles to regional transit,
and City CarShare, and provide preferential parking for
carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
TCM C-3: Promote Rideshare Services and Incentives
TCM D-1: Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities Partially consistent. The project would provide bicycle
15 City of Dublin, 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. July.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 177
Control Measure Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
parking in accordance with the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. The project should implement a
TDM program that commits to providing a defined
number of bicycle parking facilities (i.e., 20% of the
number of car spaces or a number approved by the City)
and provide secured bicycle (lockers or cages) for
employees.
TCM D-2: Improve Pedestrian Access and Facilities Consistent. The project proposes to develop a
pedestrian network that would connect to the Dublin-
Pleasanton BART station and Hacienda Drive. Pubic
sidewalks would be constructed along all adjacent public
street frontages.
TCM D-3: Support Local Land Use Strategies Consistent. The proposed project includes a variety of
mixed retail services that would serve future nearby land
uses, including project on-site residential.
TCM E-2: Parking Pricing and Management Strategies Inconsistent. The project should implement a TDM
program that would include measures such as
preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Energy and Climate Control Measures
ECM-1: Energy Efficiency Consistent. The project would be required to comply
with City’s Green Building section of the Municipal
Code (Section 7.94), State energy efficiency standards,
and the CALGreen building code.
ECM-4: Tree-Planting Consistent. The project would plant trees adjacent to
Hacienda Drive, Martinelli Way, Arnold Drive, the I-
580 freeway frontage and throughout the project site.
Trees would also be planted within the parking lots,
adjacent to proposed buildings, and concentrated in the
commercial plaza and residential open space areas.
As shown in Table 4.7-7, the project would be inconsistent with several of the Clean Air Plan
control measures. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would reduce this impact.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-3 (conflict with applicable clean air plan). The project
would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan (Significant and Unavoidable supplemental
impact).
Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would require implementation of a
TDM program to reduce trips associated with the proposed project. However, even after
mitigation, the project could still result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the Clean Air
Plan because the project would not support the Clean Air Plan’s goal of attaining air quality
standards. As a result, the project impact from the project would remain Significant and
Unavoidable.
Impacts to Sensitive Receptors. Project impacts related to increased health risk can occur either
by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 178
source of TACs or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect
existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-
foot screening radius around a project site for purposes of identifying community health risk
from siting a new sensitive receptor or a new source of TACs. The proposed project would
introduce new sensitive receptors (residences) to the project site.
Project Operation. Implementation of the project would locate new residences near Interstate
580 (I-580), local roadways, and one stationary source that emits TACs. The BAAQMD
Guidelines include thresholds to evaluate single source and cumulative source impacts of TACs
and PM2.5 on proposed sensitive receptors. At the direction of the City, the single source risk and
hazards significance thresholds were used to evaluate impacts from all nearby existing TAC
sources. Annual concentrations of DPM and total organic compounds were used to predict
cancer and non-cancer health risks, in accordance with BAAQMD recommended methodology.
Highway TAC Emissions. Traffic on high volume roadways is a source of TAC emissions that
may adversely affect sensitive receptors that reside in close proximity to these roads. For
roadways, BAAQMD has published screening tables and data to determine if roadways with
traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day may have a significant effect on a proposed
project. In the vicinity of the project area I-580 has 214,000 average daily trips (ADT), as
reported by Caltrans.16 Therefore, a refined analysis of the impacts of toxic air contaminant
(TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and
PM2.5 concentrations from I-580. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans
indicates that I-580 traffic includes about 6.8 percent trucks, of which 5.1 percent are considered
heavy duty trucks and 1.7 percent are medium duty trucks.
Roadway Emissions Modeling. This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs,
and PM2.5 emissions for traffic on I-580 using the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
EMFAC2011 emission factor model and the traffic mix developed from Caltrans data.
EMFAC2011 is the most recent version of the CARB motor vehicle emission factor model.
DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the EMFAC2011
emissions data.
CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls
or replaced to meet new 2010 engine standards that have require low DPM and PM2.5 emissions.
This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023, with the
greatest reductions occurring in 2013 through 2015. While new trucks and buses will meet strict
federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns
over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road, or retrofitted to meet similar standards. With
this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads much quicker.
CARB anticipates a 68 percent reduction in PM2.5 (including DPM) emission from trucks in
2014 with this regulation.
Emission factors were developed for the years 2017, 2020, and 2025 using the calculated mix of
cars and trucks on I-580. Default EMFAC2011 vehicle model fleet age distributions for Alameda
County were assumed. Average daily traffic volumes and truck percentages were based on
16 California Department of Transportation, 2013. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 179
Caltrans data for I-580.5,17 Traffic volumes were assumed to increase one percent per year.
Average hourly traffic distributions for Alameda County roadways were developed using the
EMFAC mode, which were then applied to the site-specific average daily traffic volumes to
obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for I-580.
For all hours of the day, other than during peak a.m. and p.m. periods, an average speed of 65
mph was assumed for all vehicles other than trucks which were assumed to travel at a speed of
60 mph. An average travel speed of 50 mph was used for westbound traffic during the 2-hour
peak a.m. period and a speed of 25 mph was used for eastbound traffic during the peak p.m.
period.18
In addition to evaluating health risks from DPM, the BAAQMD recommends evaluating health
effects from total organic gas (TOG) exhaust emissions from tailpipes and from evaporative
running losses from non-diesel vehicles.19 Emissions of TOG were calculated for 2017, 2020,
and 2025 using the EMFAC2011 model. These TOG emissions were then used in modeling
organic TACs. TOG emissions from both exhaust and running evaporative loses from gasoline
vehicles were calculated using EMFAC2011 default model values for Alameda County along
with the traffic volumes and vehicle mixes for I-580. The hourly traffic distributions and DPM
and TOG emission rates used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9).
Roadway Dispersion Modeling. Dispersion modeling of TAC emissions was conducted using the
CAL3QHCR model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of roadway analysis.
A 5-year set of hourly meteorological data (2001 – 2005) for Pleasanton obtained from
BAAQMD was used in the modeling. This monitoring station is about 1.25 miles southwest of
the project site. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic volumes, and
emission factors. East and west bound traffic on I-580 within about 1,000 feet of the project site
were evaluated with the model. The modeling used a grid of receptors with receptors spaced
every 15 meters (about 49 feet) within the proposed residential area for the project. Receptor
heights of 1.5 meters were used for all receptors. Exhibit 4.7-1 shows the roadway links and
residential receptor locations used in the modeling.
Computed Cancer Risk. Using the modeled long-term average DPM and TOG concentrations,
the individual cancer risks were computed using the most recent methods recommended by
BAAQMD.20 The factors used to compute cancer risk are highly dependent on modeled
concentrations, exposure period or duration, and the type of receptor. The exposure level is
determined by the modeled concentration; however, it has to be averaged over a representative
exposure period. The averaging period is dependent on many factors, but mostly the type of
sensitive receptor that would reside at a site. This assessment conservatively assumed long-term
residential exposures. BAAQMD has developed exposure assumptions for typical types of
sensitive receptors. These include nearly continuous exposures of 70 years for residences. It
should be noted that the cancer risk calculations for 70-year residential exposures reflect use of
BAAQMD’s most recent cancer risk calculation method, adopted in 2010. The cancer risk
17 Caltrans, 2012. 2011 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highways. Available:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/
18 Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2011. 2011 Level of Service Monitoring Report. January 2013.
19 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
20 BAAQMD, 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HSRA) Guidelines. January.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 180
calculations were based on applying age sensitivity weighting factors for each emissions period
modeled. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to
cancer causing TACs.
Cancer risks from I-580 traffic are greatest for the residential units closest to the highway, with
the maximum increased cancer risks occurring at receptors near the southeastern corner of the
project site closest to I-580. Cancer risks decrease with distance from the highway. The
maximum increased cancer risk for a ground level residential unit was computed as 60.7 in one
million. The location of maximum cancer risk is shown on Exhibit 4.7-1. Cancer risks for ground
level exposure throughout the site range from 15.4 in one million to 60.7 in one million. Exhibit
4.7-2 shows the computed cancer risk at each modeled ground level receptor location overlaid on
the conceptual site plan for the project. Cancer risks above 10 per million would be considered a
significant impact by the BAAQMD. Implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
AQ-3 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Potential non-cancer health effects due to chronic exposure to DPM were also evaluated. The
chronic inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for DPM is 5 micrograms per cubic meter
(μg/m3). The maximum predicted annual DPM concentration is 0.134 μg/m3, which is much
lower than the REL. The Hazard Index (HI), which is the ratio of the annual DPM concentration
to the REL, is 0.03. This HI is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI
greater than 1.0. The modeling results and health risk calculations from I-580 traffic are provided
in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9).
PM2.5 Concentrations from Roadway Traffic. In addition to evaluating the health risks from
TACs, potential impacts from PM2.5 emissions from vehicles traveling on I-580 were evaluated.
PM2.5 concentrations were modeled to evaluate the potential impact of exposure to PM2.5. To
evaluate potential non-cancer health effects due to PM2.5, the BAAQMD adopted a significance
threshold of an annual average PM2.5 concentration greater than 0.3 µg/m3.
The same basic modeling approach that was used for assessing TAC impacts was used in the
modeling of PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just
the diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce
PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear were included in these
emissions. The assessment involved, first, calculating PM2.5 emission rates from traffic traveling
on I-580. Then, dispersion modeling using emission factors and traffic volumes was conducted.
The dispersion model provides estimated annual PM2.5 concentrations. PM2.5 emissions were
calculated using the EMFAC2011 model for the years 2017, 2020, and 2025. Average hourly
traffic volumes were calculated in the same manner as discussed earlier for the TAC modeling.
The emission rate calculations and traffic volumes are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix
8.9).
Annual average PM2.5 concentrations from I-580 traffic are greatest for the residential units
closest to the highway, with the maximum increased concentrations occurring at receptors near
the southeastern corner of the project site closest to I-580. PM2.5 concentrations decrease with
distance from the highway. The maximum increased annual PM2.5 concentration for a ground
level residential unit was 0.67 μg/m3. The location of maximum PM2.5 concentration is the same
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 181
as shown for cancer risk on Exhibit 4.7-1. Annual PM2.5 concentrations for ground level
exposure throughout the site range from 0.16 μg/m3 to 0.67 μg/m3. Exhibit 4.7-3 shows the
maximum annual PM2.5 concentrations at each modeled ground level receptor location overlaid
on the conceptual site plan for the project. PM2.5 concentrations greater than 0.3 µg/m3 are
considered significant.
Implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3 would reduce this impact to a
level of less than significant.
Local Roadway TAC Emissions. BAAQMD provides Roadway Screening Analysis Tables that
can be used to assess potential excess cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from surface
streets for each Bay Area county. There are two roadways in the project area that could affect the
project site (i.e. average daily traffic or ADT volumes at or above 10,000 trips).
Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way are adjacent to the eastern and northern parts of the project
site, respectively. The traffic study provides peak a.m. and p.m. hourly traffic volumes. The ADT
for these roadways were computed by assuming that the p.m. peak hour is 10 percent of the
average daily traffic volume, and then taking the average of Existing Plus Project and 2035 Plus
Project conditions to estimate volumes at project operational year. Hacienda Drive would have
an ADT of 39,170 vehicles and Martinelli Way would have an ADT of 12,628 daily vehicles.
Modeling of Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way to assess cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations
from vehicle traffic on these roadways was conducted in a similar manner as was done for I-580
impacts. The CAL3QHCR model was run using five years of hourly Pleasanton meteorological
data and roadway-specific geometry, hourly traffic volumes, and emission factors to calculate
DPM, PM2.5, and TOG TAC concentrations at residential receptor locations in the project height
of 1.5 meters
Emission factors for traffic on Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way were calculated using
CARB’s EMFAC2011 model assuming the default Santa Clara County traffic mix and a speed of
30 mph for Hacienda Drive and 35 mph for Martinelli Way. Emissions for 2020 were used for
the modeling and in developing estimates of increased cancer risks from these roads. Use of
2020 emissions provides a conservative estimate of roadway emissions for the 70-year period
evaluated for cancer risks. Traffic volumes for 2020 were based on the traffic study for the
project, as discussed above, and a BAAQMD recommended truck percentage of 4.09 percent for
Alameda County.21 Approximately 67 percent of the truck traffic was assumed to be medium-
duty trucks (i.e., delivery type trucks) and the remainder as being heavy duty trucks. Results of
local roadway risk modeling are shown in Table 4.7-8.
Stationary Source TAC Emissions. Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project
site were identified using the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Risk and Hazard Analysis Tool.
This mapping tool uses Google Earth to identify the location of stationary sources and their
estimated risk and hazard impacts. At BAAQMD’s direction, risk and PM2.5 concentrations from
one diesel generator was adjusted for distance based on BAAQMD distance adjustment factors.
21 BAAQMD, 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 182
A diesel back-up generator operated Oracle USA, Inc. (BAAQMD Plant No. 17753) at 5805
Owens Drive, is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the project site. Modeling of the
emergency back-up generator was conducted assess cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations at
residential receptor locations in the project height of 1.5 meters. The ISCST3 model was run
using five years of hourly Pleasanton meteorological data to calculate DPM and PM2.5
concentrations at project receptor locations. Based on the BAAQMD 2011 Toxic Inventory,
annual DPM emissions from this source are 1.77 pounds per year. Default BAAQMD stack
parameters for generator screening (6 feet high stack, 3 inch diameter, 50 meter/sec exit velocity,
and exit temperature of 656 degrees F) were used for the modeling. Increased cancer risks were
calculated based on the modeled concentrations and BAAQMD recommended methods. Details
of the in the analysis for the generator are shown in Attachment 1 (see Appendix 8.9). Results of
the emergency back-up generator modeling are shown in Table 4.7-8.
Cumulative Risks. Cumulative TAC impacts to proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated by
adding the cancer risk, Hazard Index and PM2.5 concentrations at the maximally exposed
individual (MEI) from each source. As discussed above, at the direction of the City, the single
source thresholds were used to evaluate impacts from all nearby existing TAC sources. Table
4.7-8 shows the community risk impacts from each source upon sensitive receptors. As shown in
Table 4.7-8, cumulative cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations would be above the significance
threshold. This would be a potentially significant impact. Hazard index would be below
BAAQMD thresholds. However, as shown in Table 4.7-8, with implementation of Supplemental
Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3, cumulative cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations would be
reduced to below the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 10 in one million cancer risk and 0.3
µg/m3 PM2.5 concentration, representing a less than significant impact with mitigation.
Table 4.7-8. Cumulative Risk at Proposed Site
Distance from
MEI (feet)
Source/
Plant No.
Facility
Name
Street
Address
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
60 I-580a 60.70 0.03 0.67
250 Hacienda Drive a 1.01 <0.01 0.03
700 Martinelli Way a 0.13 <0.01 <0.01
675 17753 a Oracle
USA, Inc.
5805 Owens
Drive 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total 61.9 <0.06 <0.70
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 1.0 0.3
Significant? Yes No Yes
With Implementation of Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3
60 I-580a 9.60 <0.03 0.10
250 Hacienda Drive a 0.22 <0.01 <0.01
700 Martinelli Way a 0.03 <0.01 <0.01
675 17753 a Oracle
USA, Inc.
5805 Owens
Drive <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total <9.9 <0.06 <0.13
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 1.0 0.3
Significant? No No No
Notes: a Based on project-specific emissions and dispersion modeling
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 183
Mechanical Ventilation with Filtration. The U.S. EPA reports particle size removal efficiency for
filters rated MERV13 of 90 percent for particles in the size range of 1 to 3 µm and less than 75
percent for particles 0.3 to 1 µm.22 MERV16 filters are listed to have removal efficiency for
those particles (i.e., 0.3 to 3 µm) of 90 percent or greater. Recent studies by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District indicate that MERV13 filters could achieve reductions of about 60
percent for ultra-fine particles and about 35 percent for black carbon, while MERV16 filters
exceeded 85 percent.23
In 2012, CARB compiled a synthesis of the status of potential mitigation concepts to reduce
exposure to nearby traffic air pollution.24 Because mechanical ventilation has not been used in
residential buildings until recently, there has been limited assessment of its impact on entry of
particles and other pollutants into homes. CARB-reviewed studies of homes and schools have
shown that high-efficiency filtration in mechanical ventilation systems can be effective in
reducing levels of incoming outdoor particles. They noted that one study of residences in
Northern California found that the homes with active filtration in a mechanical system had a
notably lower portion of indoor particles from outdoors when the systems were on (filtration
active) than when they were turned off (no filtration). In another study reviewed by CARB that
included modeling study of Korean residential units with mechanical ventilation, filters rated
lower than MERV7 were insufficient for reducing contaminants that enter through the ventilation
filter; the study concluded that filters should exceed MERV11. The CARB review also notes that
in a school pilot study, a combination of MERV16 filters used as a replacement for the normal
panel filter in the ventilation system and in a separate filtration unit reduced indoor levels of
outdoor-generated black carbon, ultrafine particles and PM2.5 by 87 percent to 96 percent in three
Southern California schools.11 Use of the MERV16 panel filter alone in the HVAC system
achieved average particle reductions of nearly 90 percent. Another study reviewed by CARB
found indoor submicron particle counts in a Utah school were reduced to just one-eighth of the
outdoor levels in a building with a mechanical system using a MERV8 filter. Based on these
studies, it is assumed that MERV13 filtration could reduce particulate levels by 60 percent and
MERV16 filtration could achieve an 85 percent reduction.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-4 (exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations). The project would expose sensitive receptors to excess cancer risk and
PM2.5 concentrations that are above health-based thresholds (Less than Significant with
Mitigation)
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will ensure that the proposed
project reduces excess cancer risk and PM2.5 impacts caused by I-580 and local area traffic.
22 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 2007, Method of Testing
General Ventilation Air-Cleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 52.2-
2007.
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2009, Pilot Study of High Performance Air Filtration
for Classrooms Applications. Draft Report, October.
24 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2012, Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts to Reduce
Exposure to Nearby Traffic Pollution, August.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 184
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3 (exposuree of sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations). The project shall include the following measures to
minimize long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure for new residences:
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of occupancy prior to
1/1/2017.
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) emissions. The site layout shall locate windows and air intakes as
far as possible from I-580 traffic lanes. Any modifications to the site design shall
incorporate buffers between residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible, plant vegetation along the project site boundary
with I-580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have predicted
cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air
filtration device shall be as set forth in subsection e below.. To ensure adequate
health protection to sensitive receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the following
minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City and County of San
Francisco, 2008):
At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the ventilation
system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per one million or
greater but less than or equal to 22 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for
unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is greater than 22 per one
million and less than 50 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for
unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed, inoperable windows and no balconies on building
elevations facing I-580 freeway (MERV 16 Plus) shall be installed in a residential
building partially or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is a
greater than or equal to 50 per one million and less than 62.5 per one million as
shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater, residential units
shall not be built unless the developer includes specific mitigation measures that
are approved by a qualified air quality consultant and the City that results in a
reduction of the cancer risk to below 10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the
buildings’ heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system
shall be required. Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are
decreasing, the maintenance period shall last as long as significant excess cancer
risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted. Subsequent studies may be conducted
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 185
by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing need for the
filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1) require cleaning,
maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include
assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation
system; and (3) include provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a
unit(s) in the building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and
replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid significant excess
cancer risks and required installation of filtered ventilation systems (described
above). Note that new United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
engines standards combined with California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules
and regulations will reduce on-road emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM)
and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant
verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant
(TAC) exposure as set forth in this mitigation measure.
Three air filtration cases were identified and modeled as mitigation scenarios. In order of
increased DPM removal effectiveness, these are: use of a filtration system using MERV13, use
of a filtration system using MERV16, and use of a filtration system using MERV16 with sealed,
inoperable windows and no balconies. The last case is referred to as “MERV16 Plus”. In all
cases the air intakes for the filtration systems would be located at roof top level and as far away
from I-580 as possible. Mitigated concentrations were modeled at the roof top level of the
residential buildings, where intakes for the air filtration systems would be located as required by
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-3. Roof top concentrations were calculated at heights
of 40 and 50 feet, representative of three and four story buildings plus the approximate height of
the air filtration units.
Increased cancer risks for each of the three filtration cases were calculated assuming a
combination of outdoor and indoor exposure. For use of MERV13 and MERV16 filtration
systems, without the additional use of sealed, inoperable widows and no balconies, 3 hours of
outdoor exposure to ambient DPM concentrations and 21 hours of indoor exposure to filtered air
was assumed. In this case, the effective control efficiency using a MERV13 filtration system is
about 53 percent and for a MERV16 filtration system, the effective control efficiency is about 74
percent. For use of MERV16 air filtration systems with the additional requirements of sealed,
inoperable windows and no balconies (MERV16 Plus), 2 hours of outdoor exposure to ambient
DPM concentrations and 22 hours of indoor exposure to filtered air was assumed. The effective
control efficiency for the MERV16 Plus case is about 78 percent.
The projected cancer risks associated with use of these filtration systems would be reduced to
less than 10 in one million at all residences, or below the BAAQMD significance criterion and,
thus, to a level of less than significant.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 186
With use of project-specified air filtration systems, exposure to PM2.5 in the residential areas
throughout the project site would be reduced to below the BAAQMD significance criterion of
0.3 μg/m3 and, thus, to a level of less than significant.
Appendix 9 contains the modeling data and Exhibits 4.7-6 through 4.7-11, which graphically
illustrate the resulting cancer risk and PM2.5 exposure in the residential areas with the three levels
of air filtration in place.
Construction period impacts. Emissions from construction projects have the potential to
expose nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) to elevated levels of TACs. Construction
equipment and trucks fueled by diesel emit diesel particulate matter or DPM, which is a TAC.
However, as discussed above, the closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are
located over 1,000 feet from project construction activities. At this distance, construction of the
project does not have the potential to cause a significant impact with regards to construction
health risk. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Greenhouse gas emission impacts. The City of Dublin Climate Action Plan25 serves as a
Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy or a community-wide plan approved by
BAAQMD to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with AB 32 goals. A
Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State of
California’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual emissions projected in 2020
back down to 1990 levels. Business-as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020,
including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The
Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative
compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-
based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.
According to the City Climate Action Plan, the Dublin community emitted approximately
357,211 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) in the year 2005. Of that, 51.4
percent came from state highways, 16.8 percent from commercial/industrial uses, 14.3 percent
from residential uses, 13.9 percent from local roads, and 3.5 percent from the waste sector.
The purpose of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy is to streamline the decision-
making process regarding a proposed project’s impact on GHG emissions within the City.
However, because the project would require a General Plan Amendment that changes the land
use from commercial to mixed use residential and commercial/retail, a quantified assessment of
the project’s GHG emissions has been conducted. In addition, the project’s consistency with the
relevant goals and reduction measures of the City Climate Action Plan is evaluated.
The following emissions reduction measures and policies are relevant to the proposed project:
A.1.3 Mixed-Use Development: The project would incorporate both residential housing
and at least one nonresidential use.
25 City of Dublin, 2013. City of Dublin Climate Action Plan Update. July.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 187
A.1.4 Bicycle Parking Requirements: Under the City’s Off-Street Parking and Loading
Regulations, parking lots with 20 or more spaces in nonresidential zoning districts are
required to provide bicycle parking. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, one bicycle
parking space in a bicycle rack for each 40 vehicular parking spaces.
A.1.5 Streetscape Master Plan: The Zoning Ordinance has requirements for planting trees
in parking lots (minimum of one tree for every four parking spaces).
A.1.8 General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element: The Community
Design and Sustainability Element established design principles, policies, and
implementation measures to enhance the livability of Dublin and encourages a high level
of quality design that supports sustainability. The Community Design and Sustainability
Element applies to new development and redevelopment throughout the City.
A.1.9 Work with the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority to Improve Transit
(LAVTA): As part of the review process for proposed development projects, the City and
project proponents work with LAVTA on planning future bus stops locations and
extending service routes.
A.2.1 Green Building Ordinance: In 2009, the City passed a Green Building Ordinance
(DMC Chapter 7.94) requiring residential projects over 20 units to reach 50 points on the
GreenPoint Rated system. Alternatively, LEED for Homes is approved in the ordinance.
A.2.4 Reduce Solar Installation Permit Fee: In 2006, the City of Dublin reduced the
building permit fee related to the installation of photovoltaic systems as an incentive for
property owners to install solar electricity generating capacity on their homes and
businesses. The City of Dublin recognizes the value of solar energy as a clean source of
electricity that does not produce GHG emissions.
A.2.5 LED Streetlight Specifications for New Projects: The City has developed a LED
streetlight specification that requires all future development projects to install LED
streetlights.
A.3.1 Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance: Since 2005, the City has
implemented a Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, which requires that 100%
of asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50% of all other materials be
recycled.
A.3.4 Commercial Recycling Program: In 2005, the City began offering a free
commercial recycling program that also includes free indoor recycling containers for
businesses. Indoor recycling containers encourage employees to recycle by conveniently
locating recycling containers near their work areas.
A.3.5 Commercial Food Waste Collection Program: In 2005, the City began offering a
commercial food waste recycling program, which includes a subsidy to encourage greater
food waste recycling. Reducing the amount of food waste sent to the landfill also reduces
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 188
the CH4 emissions produced when organic waste decomposes in the absence of oxygen at
the landfill. CH4 is a powerful GHG, 21 times more potent than CO2.
A.3.6 Promote Commercial Recycling: In 2005, the City began promoting commercial
recycling in the City. The City has developed commercial recycling guides for businesses
and the City’s franchise waste hauler conducts two business audits per business day to
increase diversion efforts in the commercial sector. The 2010 CALGreen Code requires a
recycling area in new commercial buildings.
A.3.7 Promote Multi-Family Recycling: In 2005, the city began promoting multi-family
recycling. Increased recycling reduces the GHG emissions from extracting, processing,
and transporting virgin materials.
A.3.8 Curbside Residential Recycling Program: The City offers a convenient, free
recycling program that includes curbside pickup for residential neighborhoods to
encourage greater recycling efforts.
A.3.9 Curbside Organics Collection Program: The City offers a convenient organics
program that includes curbside pickup of food waste and yard waste for residential
neighborhoods.
While the project would comply with Climate Action Plan Policy A.1.3 (Mixed-Use
Development), compliance with the majority of policies has not yet been incorporated into the
project. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 would ensure that all requirements of the
City Climate Action Plan are implemented.
GHG Emissions Quantification. The BAAQMD May 2011 CEQA Guidelines included GHG
emissions-based significance thresholds. These thresholds for land-use type projects include an
emissions level of 1,100 MT CO2e per year or a GHG efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per
year per service population (residents and employees). Projects with emissions above the
thresholds would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact on global climate
change.
The same CalEEMod model run that was used to predict criteria air pollutants was also used to
predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out of the project. The
same project land use types and size, trip generation rates and other project-specific information
were input to the model. CalEEMod output worksheets are included in Appendix 8.9.
The model uses mobile emission factors from the California Air Resources Board’s
EMFAC2011 model. This model is sensitive to the year selected, since vehicle emissions have
and continue to be reduced due to fuel efficiency standards and low carbon fuels. The Year 2017
was analyzed since it is the first full year that the project could conceivably be occupied.
Site-specific land use features that could reduce vehicle emissions were also input to the model,
including the approximate number of intersections per square miles (influencing walkability) and
accessibility to nearby transit. Emissions reductions from these specific site features are included
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 189
in the mitigated emissions output, by the nature of the CalEEMod air model.
Default rates for energy consumption were assumed in the model. Emissions rates associated
with electricity consumption were adjusted to account for Pacific Gas & Electric utility’s
(PG&E) projected 2017 CO2 intensity rate. This 2017 rate is based, in part, on the requirement of
a renewable energy portfolio standard of 33 percent by the year 2020. CalEEMod uses a default
rate of 641.35 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced. The derived 2017 rate for
PG&E was estimated at 348.86 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity delivered and is based
on the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) GHG Calculator.26
The per capita rate for this project is the annual GHG emissions expressed in metric tons divided
by the estimated number of new residents and employees. The number of new residents is
anticipated to be 1,080 and the number of future employees is anticipated at 78, for a total
service population of 1,158, as indicated by the project applicant.
Default model assumptions for GHG emissions associated with area sources, solid waste
generation and water/wastewater use were applied to the project. No wood burning from
woodstoves or fireplaces was assumed in the modeling.
Construction Emissions. GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be
1,334 MT CO2e, anticipated to occur over three separate calendar years. These are the emissions
from on-site operation of construction equipment, hauling truck trips, vendor truck trips, and
worker trips. The BAAQMD does not have an adopted Threshold of Significance for
construction-related GHG emissions. The District recommends quantifying emissions and
disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the
incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where
feasible and applicable, including, but not limited to: using local building materials of at least 10
percent and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition
materials. The City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that 100 percent of
asphalt and concrete be recycled and a minimum of 50 percent of all other materials be recycled.
Operational Emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-9, operation of the project would exceed the
threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e/yr. The 2017 project per service population (employees)
emissions of 7.0 MT CO2e/year/service population would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6
MT CO2e/year. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and implementation of
Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 would be required. Emissions with mitigation in place (see
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4) are projected to be 6.3 MT CO2e/year/service
population, which would still exceed the BAAQMD threshold. As shown in Table 4.7-10, a vast
majority of the emissions are from traffic.
It should be noted that, according to the project traffic report, projected trip generation due to
project implementation would be substantially less than those approved for the current use per
26 California Public Utilities Commissions GHG Calculator version 3c, October 7, 2010. Available on-line at:
http://ethree.com/public_projects/cpuc2.php. Accessed: April 11, 2013.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 190
the Year 2035 Dublin Model. Personal communication with BAAQMD staff27 indicated that due
this substantial reduction (1,856 net trips daily), and if the project were to comply with all
applicable climate action plan measures (through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-AQ-4), this could provide evidence of a less than significant impact determination.
However, to be conservative, the lead agency has decided to measure the project’s impact on
global climate change against the quantified BAAQMD standards. Given that, there are no
additional feasible measures that the project could implement to reduce this impact to less than
significant. Therefore, this impact would be considered Significant and Unavoidable.
Table 4.7- 9. Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons
Source Category
2017 Project
Emissions
2017 Mitigated
Emissions
Area 25 25
Energy Consumption 1,385 1,259
Mobile 6.290 5,687
Solid Waste Generation 292 234
Water Usage 88 76
Total 8,080 7,281
Per Capita Emissions1 7.0 6.3
BAAQMD Thresholds 4.6 MT
CO2e/year/service
population
4.6 MT
CO2e/year/service
population
Notes: 1Based on service population of 1,158.
Supplemental Impact AQ-5 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The project
would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and indirectly, that would have a
significant impact on the environment or would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
(significant and unavoidable impact).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will ensure that the proposed
project would comply with the City of Dublin’s Climate Action Plan, but the project’s on-going
operations would exceed greenhouse gas emissions established by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 (project generation of greenhouse gas
emissions). The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Climate
Action Plan, including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking Requirements), A.1.5 (Streetscape
Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element), A.1.9
(Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED
Streetlight Specifications), A.3.1 (Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance), A.3.6
(Commercial Recycling). In addition, the project proponent is encouraged to participate in
subsidy programs such as Climate Action Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation
27 Personal communication between Alison Kirk of BAAQMD and Joshua Carman of Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc., April 10,
2014.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 191
Permit Fee) and A.3.5 (Commercial Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy
programs such as policies A.3.7 (Multi-Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and
A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection). Implementation of these mitigation measure would
reduce GHG emissions, but not below the significance thresholds.
The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use reduction goal of at least 20 percent. A
water use reduction plan shall be developed by the project applicant that may include
measures such as the installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks, low-flush
toilets, and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall implement a
solid waste recycling program through recycling and composting strategies, which results
in a project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project shall
exceed 2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMod is based on) by at least 20
percent in terms of energy-efficiency.
With the incorporation of Supplemental Mitigation measure SM-AQ-4, the project will be
consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. However, the Project GHG emissions would still
exceed the efficiency threshold of threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/year. Therefore, the impact of the
Project due to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Cumulative impacts. Cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are addressed in the
above section.
59
7
2
0
0
5
9
7
3
0
0
5
9
7
4
0
0
5
9
7
5
0
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
5
9
8
1
0
0
5
9
8
2
0
0
5
9
8
3
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
2
0
0
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
7
0
0
41
7
3
8
0
0
UTM - North (meters)
I-
5
8
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
56
.
1
56
.
4
56
.
6
56
.
8
57
.
2
57
.
5
57
.
9
58
.
2
58
.
4
58
.
6
58
.
8
59
.
1
59
.
3
59
.
5
59
.
7
59
.
8
60
.
0
60
.
2
60
.
3
60
.
4
60
.
5
60
.
6
60
.
7
46
.
7
46
.
9
47
.
1
47
.
4
47
.
7
48
.
0
48
.
3
48
.
6
48
.
8
49
.
0
49
.
2
49
.
4
49
.
6
49
.
8
49
.
9
50
.
1
50
.
2
50
.
4
50
.
5
50
.
6
50
.
6
50
.
7
50
.
8
50
.
9
51.051.0
39
.
8
40
.
1
40
.
3
40
.
5
40
.
8
41
.
0
41
.
3
41
.
6
41
.
8
42
.
0
42
.
2
42
.
4
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
8
43
.
0
43
.
1
43
.
2
43
.
3
43
.
4
43
.
5
43
.
5
43
.
6
43
.
7
43.743.8
34
.
7
34
.
9
35
.
1
35
.
3
35
.
6
35
.
8
36
.
0
36
.
3
36
.
5
36
.
7
36
.
9
37
.
0
37
.
2
37
.
3
37
.
5
37
.
6
37
.
7
37
.
8
37
.
9
37
.
9
38
.
0
38
.
0
38
.
1
38
.
2
38.238.238.2
30
.
6
30
.
9
31
.
1
31
.
3
31
.
5
31
.
7
31
.
9
32
.
1
32
.
3
32
.
5
32
.
7
32
.
8
33
.
0
33
.
1
33
.
2
33
.
3
33
.
4
33
.
5
33
.
6
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
7
33
.
8
33
.
9
33.933.933.9
27
.
4
27
.
6
27
.
8
28
.
0
28
.
2
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29
.
1
29
.
3
29
.
4
29
.
6
29
.
7
29
.
8
29
.
9
30
.
0
30
.
0
30
.
1
30
.
2
30
.
2
30
.
3
30
.
3
30
.
4
30.430.430.4
24
.
8
25
.
0
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
5
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
0
26
.
2
26
.
4
26
.
5
26
.
6
26
.
7
26
.
9
27
.
0
27
.
0
27
.
1
27
.
2
27
.
2
27
.
3
27
.
3
27
.
4
27
.
4
27
.
5
27.527.527.5
22
.
6
22
.
7
22
.
9
23
.
1
23
.
2
23
.
4
23
.
6
23
.
7
23
.
9
24
.
0
24
.
1
24
.
3
24
.
4
24
.
5
24
.
6
24
.
7
24
.
7
24
.
8
24
.
8
24
.
9
24
.
9
24
.
9
25
.
0
25
.
0
25.025.025.0
20
.
7
20
.
9
21
.
0
21
.
2
21
.
3
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
8
21
.
9
22
.
0
22
.
1
22
.
2
22
.
3
22
.
4
22
.
5
22
.
6
22
.
7
22
.
7
22
.
7
22
.
8
22
.
8
22
.
9
22
.
9
22
.
9
22.922.922.9
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
8
19
.
9
20
.
1
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
4
20
.
5
20
.
6
20
.
7
20
.
8
20
.
8
20
.
9
20
.
9
21
.
0
21
.
0
21
.
0
21
.
1
21
.
1
21
.
1
21.121.121.0
17
.
7
17
.
8
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
4
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
7
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
0
19
.
1
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
3
19
.
3
19
.
4
19
.
4
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
5
19
.
5
19
.
5
19.519.519.4
16
.
5
16
.
6
16
.
7
16
.
9
17
.
0
17
.
1
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
7
17
.
8
17
.
9
17
.
9
18
.
0
18
.
0
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18
.
1
18.118.118.0
15
.
4
15
.
5
15
.
6
15
.
8
15
.
9
16
.
0
16
.
1
16
.
2
16
.
3
16
.
3
16
.
4
16
.
5
16
.
5
16
.
6
16
.
7
16
.
7
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
8
16
.
9
16
.
9
16
.
9
16
.
9
16.816.816.8
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
0.
6
1
0.
6
1
0.
6
1
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
5
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.560.56
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.480.48
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
2
0.420.420.42
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.370.370.37
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.330.330.33
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.300.300.30
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.270.270.27
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.250.250.25
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.230.230.23
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.210.210.21
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.190.190.19
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
6
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
7
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.180.180.18
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
56
.
4
56
.
7
56
.
9
57
.
1
57
.
5
57
.
8
58
.
2
58
.
6
58
.
8
59
.
1
59
.
3
59
.
6
59
.
9
60
.
1
60
.
3
60
.
5
60
.
7
60
.
9
61
.
1
61
.
3
61
.
5
61
.
7
61
.
9
47
.
0
47
.
2
47
.
4
47
.
7
48
.
0
48
.
3
48
.
7
49
.
0
49
.
2
49
.
5
49
.
7
49
.
9
50
.
2
50
.
4
50
.
6
50
.
7
50
.
9
51
.
1
51
.
3
51
.
4
51
.
6
51
.
8
52
.
0
52
.
3
52.653.0
40
.
1
40
.
4
40
.
6
40
.
9
41
.
1
41
.
4
41
.
7
42
.
0
42
.
2
42
.
5
42
.
7
42
.
9
43
.
1
43
.
3
43
.
5
43
.
6
43
.
8
44
.
0
44
.
1
44
.
3
44
.
4
44
.
6
44
.
8
45
.
1
45.445.7
35
.
0
35
.
2
35
.
4
35
.
7
35
.
9
36
.
2
36
.
5
36
.
7
37
.
0
37
.
2
37
.
4
37
.
6
37
.
8
37
.
9
38
.
1
38
.
3
38
.
4
38
.
5
38
.
7
38
.
8
39
.
0
39
.
2
39
.
4
39
.
6
39.940.340.8
31
.
0
31
.
2
31
.
4
31
.
6
31
.
9
32
.
1
32
.
3
32
.
6
32
.
8
33
.
0
33
.
2
33
.
4
33
.
6
33
.
7
33
.
9
34
.
0
34
.
2
34
.
3
34
.
4
34
.
6
34
.
7
34
.
9
35
.
1
35
.
3
35.636.036.5
27
.
8
28
.
0
28
.
2
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29
.
3
29
.
5
29
.
6
29
.
8
30
.
0
30
.
2
30
.
3
30
.
5
30
.
6
30
.
7
30
.
8
31
.
0
31
.
1
31
.
2
31
.
4
31
.
6
31
.
8
32.132.533.1
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
5
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
1
26
.
3
26
.
5
26
.
7
26
.
9
27
.
0
27
.
2
27
.
4
27
.
5
27
.
6
27
.
8
27
.
9
28
.
0
28
.
1
28
.
3
28
.
4
28
.
6
28
.
8
29
.
0
29.329.630.2
23
.
0
23
.
1
23
.
3
23
.
5
23
.
7
23
.
9
24
.
0
24
.
2
24
.
4
24
.
6
24
.
7
24
.
9
25
.
0
25
.
1
25
.
3
25
.
4
25
.
5
25
.
6
25
.
7
25
.
9
26
.
0
26
.
2
26
.
3
26
.
6
26.827.227.8
21
.
1
21
.
3
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
8
22
.
0
22
.
1
22
.
3
22
.
5
22
.
6
22
.
8
22
.
9
23
.
0
23
.
1
23
.
3
23
.
4
23
.
5
23
.
6
23
.
7
23
.
8
24
.
0
24
.
1
24
.
3
24
.
5
24.825.225.8
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
9
20
.
0
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
5
20
.
6
20
.
8
20
.
9
21
.
1
21
.
2
21
.
3
21
.
4
21
.
5
21
.
6
21
.
7
21
.
8
21
.
9
22
.
1
22
.
2
22
.
3
22
.
5
22
.
7
23.023.424.0
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
3
19
.
5
19
.
6
19
.
7
19
.
8
19
.
9
20
.
0
20
.
1
20
.
2
20
.
3
20
.
4
20
.
5
20
.
7
20
.
8
21
.
0
21
.
2
21.521.822.5
17
.
0
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
8
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
4
18
.
5
18
.
6
18
.
7
18
.
8
18
.
9
19
.
0
19
.
1
19
.
2
19
.
4
19
.
5
19
.
7
19
.
9
20.120.521.1
16
.
0
16
.
2
16
.
3
16
.
4
16
.
5
16
.
7
16
.
8
16
.
9
17
.
0
17
.
1
17
.
2
17
.
3
17
.
4
17
.
5
17
.
6
17
.
7
17
.
8
17
.
9
18
.
0
18
.
1
18
.
2
18
.
3
18
.
5
18
.
7
19.019.320.0
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
2
0.
6
3
0.
6
3
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
4
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
5
0.
6
6
0.
6
6
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
6
7
0.
6
8
0.
6
8
0.
6
8
0.
6
9
0.
6
9
0.
7
0
0.
7
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.
5
2
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
3
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
4
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
5
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
6
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
0.
5
7
0.
5
8
0.
5
8
0.
5
9
0.
5
9
0.
6
0
0.610.62
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
6
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
7
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
8
0.
4
9
0.
4
9
0.
4
9
0.
5
0
0.
5
0
0.
5
1
0.
5
1
0.
5
2
0.530.54
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
1
0.
4
2
0.
4
2
0.
4
2
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
3
0.
4
4
0.
4
4
0.
4
5
0.
4
5
0.
4
6
0.470.480.49
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
8
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
3
9
0.
4
0
0.
4
0
0.
4
1
0.420.430.45
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
4
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
5
0.
3
6
0.
3
6
0.
3
7
0.
3
7
0.380.390.41
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
2
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
3
0.
3
4
0.350.360.38
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
0
0.
3
1
0.
3
2
0.320.340.35
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.
2
8
0.
2
8
0.
2
9
0.
2
9
0.300.310.33
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
6
0.
2
7
0.
2
7
0.280.300.31
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.
2
5
0.
2
6
0.270.280.30
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.
2
4
0.
2
5
0.250.270.29
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
8
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
1
9
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
0
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
1
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
2
0.
2
3
0.
2
4
0.240.260.28
59
7
5
5
0
5
9
7
6
0
0
5
9
7
6
5
0
5
9
7
7
0
0
5
9
7
7
5
0
5
9
7
8
0
0
5
9
7
8
5
0
5
9
7
9
0
0
5
9
7
9
5
0
5
9
8
0
0
0
UT
M
-
E
a
s
t
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
41
7
3
3
0
0
41
7
3
3
5
0
41
7
3
4
0
0
41
7
3
4
5
0
41
7
3
5
0
0
41
7
3
5
5
0
41
7
3
6
0
0
41
7
3
6
5
0
UTM - North (meters)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 197
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials issues on the project site were not analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Subsequently, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for
hazardous materials have been completed on the site. This chapter examines the potential for
substantial soil or groundwater contamination on or adjacent to the site. The following analysis is
based on a Phase I ESA completed by the firm of ENGEO on the project site dated August 2,
2013. The ENGEO report is hereby incorporated by reference into this DSEIR and is available
for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Project site conditions. The approximately 27.45-acre site is generally vacant with the
exception of a small building in the approximate center of the site. The project site was part of a
larger Camp Parks area transferred to Alameda County in 1969. While a part of Camp Parks, the
site number of former military buildings, paved roads, an athletic field and similar uses. All
structures and related military improvements were removed by the mid-1990’s.
Potential on-site contamination. The Phase I ESA found no evidence of Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs) on the site, although such conditions have been identified on
surrounding properties, specifically to the north, which is identified as Site 16A. A previous
Underground Storage Tank on the property was removed in 2008 and surrounding soil excavated
and removed. The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH) granted a
case closure on the project property on September 3, 2010 for commercial land uses only. In the
event residential land use is proposed on the property the closure letter stated that ACDEH is
required to be notified and will re-evaluate site conditions based on the submitted plans.
The applicant has also indicated that the small existing office building would be removed from
the site prior to commencement of construction activities. This building could contain lead based
paints or asbestos building materials.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Following is a partial listing of federal, state and local agencies that have regulatory authority
over the use, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes in the City of Dublin and Alameda
County.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA regulates chemical and hazardous
materials use, storage, treatment, handling, transport and disposal practices. This agency protects
workers and the community and integrates requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and
Clean Air Act into state legislation.
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): The RWCQB, San
Francisco Bay Region, protected surface and groundwater resources from pollutants discharged
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 198
into waters of the state. This agency issues and enforces National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC): This state agency regulates
hazardous substances and wastes, oversees remedial investigations, protects drinking water from
contamination and warns the public of possible danger from listed carcinogens.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): The BAAQMD issues permits for
industrial air emissions, restaurant venting and similar operations. The District also establishes
regional air quality emissions standards.
Alameda County Health Department. The Alameda County Health Department operates the
Hazardous Materials/Waste Program for most cities in Alameda County, including Dublin and
unincorporated properties in the County. Specific programs include tracking leaking storage
tanks and similar activities.
City of Dublin. The Seismic Safety and Safety Element of the Dublin General Plan contains
Guiding Policy A, that directs the City to maintain and enhance the ability to regulate uses,
transport and storage of hazardous materials and to quickly identify substances and take
appropriate action during emergencies. The City of Dublin contracts with the Alameda County
Fire Department to provide fire and emergency rescue service to City residences. The
Department provides emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in the community.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS FROM PREVIOUS EIRs
The topic of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
or the IKEA SEIR
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
As described in the Setting section, several recent hazardous materials studies have been
identified since the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR analyses. Supplemental impacts are
identified based on the recent Environmental Site Assessment for the project property.
Significance Criteria. Based on the findings of the Initial Study for the project, implementation
of the Project would be considered to have a significant impact with respect to hazardous
materials if it were to:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment.
Supplemental Impacts. . The proposed project would include grading of the entire site to allow
construction of proposed buildings parking areas and similar improvements as described in the
Project Description. Trenching of portions of the site would also occur for placement of
underground utilities. Installation of proposed landscaping would also require soil excavation for
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 199
installation of plant material and irrigation lines. Any of these activities could disturb previously
identified on-site contamination and release this into the environment. Residential uses are
included as part of the proposed project which were not part of the previously approved
commercial project. Under the Standards of Significance, this would be a significant impact.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-1 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment during construction). The site has been remediated for commercial and other
non-residential land uses. As a part of the site management terms that were approved when
the remediation occurred in 2010, the Alameda County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) required that if any residential or other similar land use is proposed at
the Property, the ACDEH must be notified. ACDEH will then re-evaluate the case upon
receipt of approved development/construction plans (potentially significant impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level by requiring additional site testing and remediation, if required, before
grading for residential uses is allowed.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment during construction). The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the
proposed project and the intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can re-
evaluate the case. If directed by ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or site health risk
assessment shall be completed for portions of the site anticipated for residential
development and excavation prior to issuance of a grading and/or site improvement
permit. The site investigation shall be coordinated with the Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health. The investigation plan shall include a description of the work to
be performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and requirements for quality
control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation plan shall be prepared and
approved by the ACDEH. Grading or excavation of any identified contaminated residential
area on the site shall not occur until ACDEH issues a closure letter authorizing residential
uses on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with documentation that
the above actions have taken place.
To protect the health and safety of construction workers, a Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be
prepared and implemented if additional remediation is required.
Approval of the proposed project could result in a significant impact by causing a release of
hazardous materials into the environment if dewatering of the site is required by appropriate
regulatory agencies prior to commencement of construction.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment due to dewatering activities). If required, construction dewatering activities
could release identified accumulations of residual hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 200
surrounding residents and visitors during construction (potentially significant impact and
mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to less than
significant by requiring preparation and approval of necessary permits to safely dewater the site
and appropriate treatment of dewatered material to be reused. Permits and approvals may be
required from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda County Health Department, State Water
Resources Control Board discharge permits or potentially an air quality permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Control Board if Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are found.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-2 (potential for release of hazardous materials into the
environment due to dewatering activities). If construction dewatering is necessary, a
construction dewatering plan shall be prepared and submitted with a dewatering permit
application. Reuse of groundwater as an on-site dust palliative or for soil compaction is
acceptable if requisite testing and comparison to CAL-EPA screening thresholds indicate
that the groundwater is suitable for reuse. If reuse is not possible, contaminated water shall
be safely removed to an approved site. Groundwater removed during construction
dewatering shall be treated to the extent required by the permit agency prior to discharge
and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or other agency with jurisdiction, if
the water is to be discharged into a storm or sanitary sewer system.
Demolition of the existing building on the site could result in a significant impact by causing a
release of lead based paint and asbestos containing material into the environment if these
materials are present in the building.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-3 (potential for release of lead based paint and asbestos
containing material). Demolition activities could release significant quantities of lead based
paint and asbestos containing material and other contaminants into the environment,
possibly exposing construction workers, and surrounding residents and visitors during
construction (potentially significant impact and mitigation required).
Adherence to the following supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less
than significant level by requiring the safe remediation of potentially hazardous material that
could be located in the existing building.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3 (potential for release of lead based paint and asbestos
containing material). Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site
building, testing shall be performed by a qualified and licensed environmental professional
to determine the present of significant quantities of lead based paint and asbestos
containing material. If detected, such material shall be removed by a qualified contractor
and disposed of in an approved disposal facility. Necessary permits shall be obtained from
appropriate regulatory agencies prior to remediation.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 201
Supplemental Cumulative Impacts. On-site hazardous conditions would be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level with adherence to the above mitigation measures. No additional
supplemental impacts related to the potential for release of hazardous material have been
identified for adjacent properties in the Environmental Site Assessments prepared for this
project. Therefore, the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any
cumulative hazardous conditions.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 202
5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and comparative analysis of
feasible alternatives to the proposed project which have the potential of achieving most of the
project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project.
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through comparison of
these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages of each can be weighed and considered
by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a range of
alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and require the EIR to set forth a range of
alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment encompassing
approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328 acres within the General Plan
Amendment area. The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a variety
of types and densities of housing, as well as employment-generating commercial, campus office
and other land uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated schools, open space and
other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning area, including riparian
corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through restrictive land use designations and
policies. The land use plan reflected the Eastern Dublin Project Objectives as set forth in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that could eliminate
or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The four identified alternatives
included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No
Development. These are described below:
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential development of the
GPA/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan for the unincorporated portion of
the planning area under the Alameda County General Plan.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative evaluated
development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed development beyond the Specific
Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence boundary. The effect of this alternative was to
exclude Upper and Lower Doolan Canyon properties from the project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative
evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but reduced some higher traffic
generating commercial uses in favor of increased residential dwellings.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development would occur in
the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar land uses then in place.
The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution
No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities and No
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 203
Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning
Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This
alternative was approved based on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would
reduce land use impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce
growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic, infrastructure and noise
impacts of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project,
however, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the
GPA/SP, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No.
53-93).
5.2 Alternatives Identified in the IKEA SEIR
The following alternatives were analyzed in the IKEA Supplemental EIR.
No Project. This Alternative assumed development pursuant to the Dublin General Plan and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, which, at that time, was Campus Office. Development intensity
between 0.25 and 0.75 was assumed, consistent with the EDSP. Less-than-significant impacts
after mitigation were identified with respect to air quality and biological resources. Traffic and
circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed that the project site would remain
vacant and undeveloped. No impacts were identified under this Alternative.
Reduced Intensity. A Reduced Density Alternative was considered in the IKEA SEIR. The
development scenario analyzed development of 299,475 square feet of commercial uses on the
site. Air quality and biological resource impacts were found to be less-than-significant after
mitigation. Traffic and circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
Mixed Use. The final Alternative considered in the IKEA SEIR was a mixed-use development
that included 600,000 square feet of office space, 450 apartment dwellings and 21,000 square
feet of commercial land use. Similar to the No Project and Reduced Intensity Alternatives,
impacts to air quality and biological resources could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
while traffic and circulation impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable.
In certifying the IKEA SEIR by adopting Resolution No. 44-04 on March 16, 2004, the Dublin
City Council found all of the Alternatives identified in the SEIR to be infeasible. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of Resolution No. 44-04 for air quality and traffic
and circulation impacts that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
5.3 Alternatives Identified in this SEIR
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
Alternative 1-No Project/No Development. CEQA requires an analysis of a "No Project"
alternative. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the site would remain vacant as it presently
exists and no development would occur. Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
land use designations would remain as they currently exist. This alternative would avoid the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 204
range of environmental impacts described in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the IKEA SEIR and this
DSEIR, including:
• Population and Housing: Land use within the project area would remain vacant and there
would be no impacts related increasing the local population on the project site.
• Transportation and Traffic: No new vehicle trips would be generated from the project
site that would be added to existing nearby roadways and freeways. No project traffic
would be added to existing left-turn lane queuing conditions. Similarly, there would be
no new pedestrian or bicycle traffic to and from the site nor any new users of public
transit systems from the proposed project. There would be no significant and unavoidable
impacts related to project contributions to congested Dublin arterial roadways or
freeways.
• Community Services and Facilities: No increases in the demand for public schools would
be created nor would there be an increased demand for local or regional park and
recreation facilities.
• Sewer and Water: There would be no demand for potable or recycled water or increased
wastewater from the site since no development would occur.
• Biological Resources: No special-status plant or wildlife species on the site would be
impacted since there would be no disturbance of the site. Similarly, there would be no
impacts to wetlands or other waters as would occur under the proposed project.
• Noise: No new noise sources would be generated on the site as a result of increased
traffic, noise from loading and unloading activities, use of trash compactors or
mechanical equipment since no development would occur.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: There would be no short-term construction
related air or greenhouse gas emissions or long-term operational air quality and
greenhouse emission impacts associated with the project since no construction would
occur and there would be no vehicle trips to and from the site. No sensitive receptors
would be located on the site and no impacts would occur with respect to exposure of
sensitive receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants. There would be no contribution to long-
term, cumulative air quality or greenhouse emissions since no vehicular traffic would be
attracted to the site or other activities occur that would cumulatively contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under the No Project Alternative. No disturbance of hazardous materials
located on the site would occur.
Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in significantly less impacts
than the proposed project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 205
Alternative 2-General Commercial Development. Alternative 2 would include development of
the site under the existing Planned Development zoning. The existing PD zoning would provide
for 270,000 square feet of retail space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space on the project
site. The alternative would also include on-site parking, new driveways from adjoining roads,
landscaping and other improvements.
Implementation of this Alternative would not require amendments to the Dublin General Plan,
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or existing site zoning.
An analysis of the impacts of the Mixed-Use Alternative is as follows:
• Population and Housing: The project site would be developed with one or more retail and
restaurant space as currently envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. No housing would be located on the site, so there would be no impacts due
to housing and population which would be less than the proposed project.
• Transportation and Traffic: Under Alternative 2, A.M. peak hour trips would be less
than the proposed project, so impacts on roadways during the A.M. peak hour would be
less for this alternative as compared to the proposed project.
Table 5.1-1. Alternative 2 vs. Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips
Proposed Project1
560 405
Alternative 2 -Retail
Development2
351 842
Difference -209 +437
Notes:
1) Project trip rates contained in DSEIR Table 4.2-2
2) Alternative 2 trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates, 2014
P.M. peak hour trips would be substantially greater, estimated to be 437, than the
proposed project. Therefore, traffic and transportation impacts on local roadways and
freeways would be expected to be greater than the proposed project. Significant and
unavoidable impacts would still occur at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
intersection and the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection. It is likely that
other significant and unavoidable impacts could also occur at other nearby intersections
during the P.M. peak hour due to the increased volume of traffic in this period.
Significant and unavoidable impacts in terms of queuing lengths at local intersections
would also occur, similar to the proposed project.
Impacts to traffic safety, pedestrian, bicycle and public transit systems as identified in the
Traffic and Transportation section of this DSEIR for the proposed project could also
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 206
occur with respect to Alternative 2, but these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level as noted in the DSEIR.
• Community Services and Facilities: Development under Alternative 2 would likely result
in less-than-significant impacts to Dublin Unified School District facilities and local and
regional park facilities, since no residences would be built that would use community
services and facilities. Therefore, the impact of Alternative 2 would be less than the
proposed project.
• Sewer and Water: Potable water use for commercial development that could be built
under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project as shown in Table 4.4-1 of
this DSEIR. This is because proposed residential uses require more water use than
commercial and other non-residential uses. Similarly, commercial uses considered under
Alternative 2 would generate less wastewater since less water would be used. Therefore,
the impact of Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
• Biological Resources: Development under Alternative 2 would be approximately the
same as the proposed project, since the same amount of ground disturbance would occur
and the same impacts to special-status plant and wildlife resources would occur. The
same impacts to wetlands and other waters would also occur. Similar to the proposed
project, all biological resource impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
• Noise: New sources of noise would be introduced onto the project site in terms of vehicle
traffic, loading and unloading activities and mechanical noise. However, there would not
be a permanent residential population that would be affected by increased noise or be
subject to existing noise from the I-580 freeway south of the site. Overall, noise impacts
under Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Development that could occur under
Alternative 2 would result in an estimated 11,814 daily trips (source: Kittelson
Associates, 4/9/14), which would be significantly greater than the estimated 6,219 trips
for the proposed project as documented in Table 4-2-4. This would result in emissions of
a significantly higher emission of air pollutants and greenhouses on a project and
cumulative basis than the proposed project.
However, there would not be a permanent on-site resident population that would be
impacted by Toxic Air Contaminants as would residents under the proposed project. It is
anticipated that impacts related to violation of air quality standards, conflicts with
applicable regional clean air plans, and greenhouse gas emissions would be significant
and unavoidable, similar to the proposed project.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under Alternative 2 since no residential development would occur. However,
development of the site under Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to proposed
project due to exposure to and disposal of hazardous materials.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 207
Alternative 3- Campus Office Development. Under this alternative the site would be
developed consistent with the existing Campus Office General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan land use designation. This Alternative considers construction of up 218,000 square feet of
administrative, business and professional offices and a Floor Area Ratio of 0.35, consistent with
nearby properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Development of this alternative would
also include on-site surface parking lots, landscaping, signs and similar improvements normally
and customarily included in an office park development.
No amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be required to
implement Alternative 3.
This alternative would generally result in the same type and intensity of impacts as analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, including:
• Population and Housing: The project site would be developed with multiple low-rise,
offices in a campus-like setting, as currently envisioned in the Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, similar to Alternative 2. No impacts would occur with
respect to inducing additional population growth or housing on this site.
• Transportation and Traffic: New peak hour vehicle trips would be added to the local and
regional roadways system. Based on Table 5.1-2, there would be slightly fewer peak hour
trips than the proposed project, but impacts to local and regional roads, key nearby
intersections and queuing conditions would occur on a project and cumulative basis. It is
likely the same significant and unavoidable impacts would occur as would occur for the
proposed project since approximately the same number of peak trips would occur.
Table 5.1-2. Alternative 3 vs. Project Trip Generation
A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips
Proposed Project1
560 405
Alternative 3 –Office
Development2
402 344
Difference -158 -61
Notes:
1) Project trip rates contained in DSEIR Table 4.2-2
2) Alternative 2 trip rates provided by Kittelson & Associates, 2014
Impacts to traffic safety, pedestrian, bicycle and public transit systems as identified in the
Traffic and Transportation section of this DSEIR for the proposed project could also
occur with respect to Alternative 2, but these impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-
significant level as noted in the DSEIR.
• Community Services and Facilities: Similar to Alternative 2, development of the site
under Alternative 3 would result in less-than-significant impacts to Dublin Unified
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 208
School District facilities and local and regional park facilities, since no residences would
be built.
• Sewer and Water: Impacts to use of water and generation of wastewater would be less
than Alternative 2, since water demand for office use is considered approximately the
same as retail use by DSRSD staff (Source: S. Kolodzie, DSRSD, 3/3/14) and would
result in an estimated build-out water use of approximately 21,800 gallons per day based
on DSRSD water use rates shown in Table 4.2-1. Impacts to water and sewer would be
less under Alternative 3 than the proposed project.
• Biological Resources: Development under Alternative 3 would be approximately the
same as the proposed project and Alternative 2, since the same amount of ground
disturbance would occur and the same impacts to special-status plant and wildlife
resources would occur. The same impacts to wetlands and other waters would also occur.
Similar to the proposed project, all biological resource impacts could be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level.
• Noise: New sources of noise would be introduced onto the project site in terms of vehicle
traffic and mechanical noise. However, similar to Alternative 2, there would not be a
permanent residential population on the site as would occur under the proposed project
that would be affected by increased on-site noise or be subject to existing noise from the
I-580 freeway south of the site. Overall, noise impacts under Alternative 3 would be
approximately the same as Alternative 2 and would be less than the proposed project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse
gasses under Alternative 3 is estimated to be less than either the proposed project or
Alternative 2. This is due to fewer total daily trips that would be generated by
Alternative. The estimated total daily vehicle trips for Alternative 3 would be 2,547
(Kittleson & Associates, 4/9/14), which is fewer total daily trips than either Alternative 2
or the proposed project. Similar to Alternative 2, there would not be an on-site population
of sensitive receptors that would be impacts from TAC emissions from the adjacent I-580
freeway as would occur under the proposed project. It is likely that Alternative 3 would
result in the same significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to violation of air
quality standards, conflicts with applicable clean air plans and emission of greenhouse
gasses.
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials: No notification to the Alameda County
Environmental Health Department of pending residential development on the site would
be required under Alternative 3 since no residential development would occur.
5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project
alternative, would result in fewer and less intensive environmental impacts than the proposed
project and all other alternatives that propose development, since the project site would remain
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 209
vacant and no development impacts would occur. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be the
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Between the remaining alternatives, Alternative 2 would then be the next most environmentally
superior alternative.
Alternative 2 (general commercial development) would result in significantly fewer total daily
trips than either the proposed project or Alternative 3 (campus office development), although
Alternative 2 would result in slightly higher p.m. peak hour trips than the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would result in less intense impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions
than the proposed project since it would result in significantly fewer daily vehicle trips.
Alternative 2 would also result in less intense impacts to community services and facilities
(schools and parks), on-site noise impacts, water use and wastewater generation than the
proposed project, since there would not be an on-site population that would require these
services. Impacts to on-site biological resources would be approximately the same as the
proposed project since the same amount of ground surface would be disturbed for grading and
construction. Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less under Alternative 2 than
the proposed project, since there would not be an on-site resident population that could be
affected by any residual contaminants. Similarly, impacts regarding Toxic Air Contaminants and
noise would be slightly less than the proposed project due to an absence of an on-site residential
population.
Alternative 3 (campus office development) is anticipated to have approximately the same
environmental impacts as the proposed project in terms of water use and wastewater generation,
hazards, and biological impacts as the proposed project. Impacts regarding traffic and
transportation, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than the than the
proposed project and Alternative 2. Impacts regarding Toxic Air Contaminants and noise would
be similar to Alternative 2.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 210
6.0 REQUIRED CEQA DISCUSSION
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of implementing the
proposed Project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as those which taken
individually may be minor but, when combined with similar impacts associated with existing
development, proposed development projects and planned but not built projects, have the
potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be
evaluated when they are significant and that the discussion describe the severity of the impacts
and the estimated likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of
cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that provided for the Project
alone.
The analyses of cumulative impacts for the project are contained in each of the impact sections
addressed in this SEIR. The cumulative impacts analysis for impacts not addressed in this EIR
are contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR.
A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
• Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1/F)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road (Impact 3.3/A)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between I-680 freeway and
Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between Tassajara Road and Airway
Boulevard Impact 3.3/C)
• Cumulative degradation of I-680 freeway operations north of I-580 (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 east of Airway Boulevard and between Dougherty Road
and Hacienda Boulevard (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with Hacienda Drive and
Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
• Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with Gleason Road, Fallon Road
and Transit Spine (renamed to Central Boulevard) (Impact 3.3/N)
• Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste facilities (Impact 3.4 O and
P)
• Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/E)
• Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5/Q)
• Direct habitat loss (Imapct3.7/A)
• Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3/7/C)
• Construction equipment/vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11/B)
• Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of nitrogen (Impact
3.11/C)
• Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11/E)
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 211
IKEA SEIR. The following cumulative impacts were documented in the IKEA SEIR, as follows.
• Exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ozone precursors
(Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-3)
• Cumulative traffic and transportation impacts at study area intersections (Supplemental
Impact SM-TRA-2)
• Cumulative increase of project-related traffic on adjacent freeways (Supplemental Impact
SM-TRA-3)
This DSEIR identifies additional cumulative impacts:
• Supplemental Impact TR-2: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period.
• Supplemental Impact TR-3: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Boulevard/Hacienda Drive intersection during the PM peak period.
• Supplemental Impact TR-4: Short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-5: Long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Boulevard/Scarlett Drive intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-6: Long-term cumulative impact at the Dublin
Boulevard/Arnold Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-7: Short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-8: Short-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-9: Long-term cumulative plus project queuing impact at the
Scarlett Drive/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Impact TR-15: Short-term cumulative conditions roadway segment impact
along northbound Tassajara Road between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway.
• Supplemental Impact TR-16: Roadway segment impact along westbound Dublin
Boulevard between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks.
• Supplemental Impact AQ-2: Emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants during
project operation.
• Supplemental Impact AQ-4: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, both directly and
indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would conflict
with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a proposed
Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the Project. If the
benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable impacts, the adverse
environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead Agency. To approve the
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 212
Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an adverse impact, the Lead Agency must
make a Statement of Overriding Consideration supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin project, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.)
Any approval of the current project would likewise require adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this
DSEIR, i.e., Supplemental Impacts TR-2 (short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin
Blvd./Dougherty Rd. intersection during the PM peak period), TR-3 (short-term cumulative
impacts at Dublin Blvd./Hacienda Dr. intersection), TR-10 (roadway segment impact along
Dublin Blvd. between Hacienda Dr. and Hibernia Dr.), TR-11 (roadway segment impact along
Hacienda Dr. between Dublin Blvd. and Central Pkwy.), TR-12 (roadway segment impact along
Dublin Blvd. between DeMarcus Blvd. and Iron Horse Pkwy.), TR-13 (roadway segment impact
along Dublin Blvd. between Scarlett Dr. and Dougherty Rd), TR-14 (short-term cumulative
impact under No Project conditions, roadway segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr.
between the I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing), TR-15 (short-term cumulative
impact, roadway segment impact along northbound Tassajara Rd. between Dublin Blvd. and
Central Pkwy.), TR-16 (long-term cumulative impact, roadway segment impact along westbound
Dublin Blvd. between Iron Horse Pkwy. and Camp Parks), TR-17 (long-term cumulative impact
under No Project conditions, roadway segment impact along northbound Hacienda Dr. between
the I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing).
The following additional impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable as
well: Supplemental Impact AQ-1 (emission of cumulative considerable air pollutants during
project operation), Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards) and
Supplemental Impact AQ-3 (conflict with applicable clean air plan) and Supplemental Impact
AQ-5 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions).
Pursuant to the Citizens for a Better Environment case, the Statement of Overriding
Considerations would also be required to address the significant unavoidable impacts from the
Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to the project.
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 213
7.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Alice Chen P.E., Kittleson & Associates (traffic and transportation)
Debby Yueh, P.E., Kittleson & Associates (traffic and transportation)
Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin (acoustics)
James Reyff, Illingworth & Rodkin (air quality/greenhouse gas emissions)
Joshua Carmen, Illingworth & Rodkin (air quality/greenhouse gas emissions)
Pat Lam, ENGEO (hazards)
Tom Fraser, WRA (biological resources)
Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics)
City of Dublin Staff
Luke Sims AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Kristi Bascom, Principal Planner
Andy Russell, P.E. City Engineer
Obaid Khan P.E., Traffic Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Fire Marshall, Alameda County Fire Department
Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services
Applicant Consulting Team
Mike Parker and David Clock, Quattro Realty
Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted
Stan Kolozdie and Rhodora Biagtan, Dublin San Ramon Services District
Patricia Benavidez and Shirley Edward, Dublin Unified School District
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 214
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix, were used in the
preparation of this DSEIR.
Annual Review of Sustainable Water Supply for Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, May 15, 2013
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, 2011
Climate Action Plan, City of Dublin, updated July 2013
Dublin Bikeways Master Plan, 2007
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan Draft EIR, RBF Consulting, June 2013
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 2/13
Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace
Roberts & Todd, 1994
Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Alameda County
ALUC, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update
The Village at Dublin Supplemental EIR (Draft and Final), Jerry Haag, October 2013
Urban Water Master Plan 2010, Dublin San Ramon Services District, 2011
The Green Project/ Draft Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin May 2014
Page 215
8.0 Appendices
All Appendices are under separate cover
The Green Mixed Use Project
Final Supplemental EIR
PLPA-2013-00013
Lead Agency:
Prepared by:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
August 2014
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 2
City of Dublin August 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................3
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR.........................................................................4
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters..................................................................................11
Responses to DSEIR Comment Letters................................................................................12
Attachments
Attachment 1: Annotated Comment Letters
Attachment 2: Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures)
Attachment 3: Breeding Bird Survey Report, dated April 2014
Attachment 4: Alameda County Department of Environmental Health letter, dated
June 2014
Attachment 5: Ground Zero Report for Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health letter, dated April 2014
Attachment 6: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District " Guidance
for Construction GHG Emissions Reductions", dated September
2010.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 3
City of Dublin August 2014
Introduction
The project area contains approximately 27.5 acres of land located on the south side of
Martinelli Way between Hacienda Drive to the east and Arnold Road to the west. Interstate
580 forms the southern boundary of the site. The Alameda County Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers for the project area are 986-0033-004-00, 986-0033-005-02, and 986-0033-006-
00.
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated May 2014 was prepared
for this project and distributed for public review.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelines, after completion of the DSEIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and
obtain comments from public agencies and organizations having jurisdiction by law over
elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on
the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to substantive comments on
environmental issues raised during the DSEIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review period
beginning on May 7, 2014 and ending on June 23, 2014.
This Comments and Responses document augments the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprises the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this project. This document
contains all public comments received during the public review period regarding the DSEIR
and responses to those comments. Included within the document is an annotated copy of
each comment letter, identifying specific comments, followed by a response to that
comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in the
DSEIR. In the course of preparing the responses to comments, the City generated
clarifications and modifications to the text of the DSEIR. The City has carefully reviewed the
responses in this document, especially any new information or clarifications and
modifications to the DSEIR text, against the recirculation standards of CEQA Guidelines
section 15088.5. None of the new information, clarifications, or modifications in this
document constitutes significant new information as defined in the Guidelines, such as new
or substantially more severe significant impacts, therefore the City has determined that no
recirculation is required.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 4
City of Dublin August 2014
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by reference
into the DSEIR document.
1. Page 4: Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures) has been re-printed in its
entirety to ensure that the text in the summary table matches exactly the text in the
body of the DSEIR. Table 1.1 is included as Attachment 1 to the FSEIR.
Additionally, several Supplemental Mitigation Measures have been modified based
on the responses provided herein. All changes to Table 1.1 are shown in underline
and strikethrough.
2. Page 37: Under the “Circulation and Access” heading, the first sentence in the
second paragraph from the bottom shall be modified to read:
An approximately 10 15 foot wide trail would be provided on the site adjacent to the I-580
freeway.
3. Page 38: A new paragraph will be added, as follows:
Site lighting. The project site will contain lighting adequate for safety and security
purposes. Several of the light fixtures will be solar and wind powered and each individual
fixture will contain small solar panels/small-scale wind turbines to generate the electricity
needed to power the lights. Other light fixtures will be LED to ensure maximum efficiency.
4. Page 51. Fourth paragraph shall be modified as follows. The updated data does not
change the traffic impact analysis of the DSEIR. This information was provided as
background context only.
Freeways. Regional vehicular access to the site is provided primarily by the freeway system
that serves eastern Alameda County. Interstate 580 (I-580) is an east-west facility that runs
along the southern boundary of the project site. It spans between US Highway 101 in the
North Bay city of San Rafael and Interstate 5 just south of the Central Valley city of Tracy
with direct connections to Interstate 80, Interstate 680, Interstate 205, and State Route 238.
It has eight-to-ten travel lanes in the vicinity of the project site and carries approximately
214,000197,000 average daily vehicles and 15,800 peak hour vehicles between Hacienda
Drive and Tassajara Road. The nearest access to I-580 from the project site is provided by
the ramps on Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road.
The footnote on Page 51 shall also be modified to note that the source of the updated traffic
volume is: “California Department of Transportation, 2013. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the
California State Highway System.”
5. Page 67: Second paragraph shall be modified as follows:
An adjustment was made to account for internal trips between retail, which includes
restaurants and other retail, and residential land uses within the project site. The internal trip
adjustment was performed using procedures recommended by ITE for multi-use
developments. Internal trips are trips that would occur between different land uses on the
same site without accessing the external street system. Therefore, this analysis assumes
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 5
City of Dublin August 2014
direct access would be provided between the residential and commercial uses. While it is
reasonable to assume a small number of internal trips would occur during the AM peak
hour, ITE does not provide any guidance. The exclusion of AM peak hour internal trip
adjustments results in a conservative analysis. Further details on the internal trip
calculations may be found in Appendix A of Appendix 8.6.
6. Page 82: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-5 shall be modified as follows”
Supplemental Mitigation Measure -TR-5. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and
Scarlett Drive, there is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended
measure to mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard
due to the high rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade
separated crossing. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade
pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated
to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings project has not been
environmentally cleared, nor has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with
regards to the feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to
improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to
include a grade separated crossing at this location in its update to the TIF program to secure
project funding. Because the separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared,
and to ensure that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is required
to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk
on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
7. Pages 106 and 107. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-TR-18 and SM-TR-19
shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-18 and 19. Prior to issuance of any permit for
the project, the Project shall submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City
guidelines, polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the issuance
of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final Site Improvement Plans for
both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with the Site Development Review
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with
applicable City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City of
Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.
8. Page 110: The third paragraph on this page and Table 4.3-1 shall be modified as
follows based on information from DUSD. The updated data does not change the
conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s impact on schools is less than significant.
Schools that would likely be affected by the proposed project include:
• Kolb Elementary, 3150 Palermo Way
• Dougherty Elementary, 5301 Hibernia
• Fallon Middle School, 3601 Kohnen Way
• Dublin High School, 8151 Village Parkway
• Valley High School, 6901 York Drive
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 6
City of Dublin August 2014
Table 4.3-1. Current Public School Enrollment v. Capacity
School Facility 2013/14 Enrollment School Capacity
Kolb Elementary 1009 1007
Dougherty Elementary 818 805 826 933
Fallon Middle School 1,110 1,232
Dublin High 1,922 1,737 2,198 2,232
Valley High 78 80 360
Source: Sherrie Sylva, Dublin Unified School District, 2013 3/31/2014
9. Page 114: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Park-1 shall be modified as
follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Park-1 (lack of adequate local parkland). As part
of the first final subdivision map for the project, the project developer(s) shall dedicate a
minimum two-acre Neighborhood Square to the City of Dublin. The size, configuration and
location of the Neighborhood Square shall be approved by the Dublin Parks and Community
Services Department. Project developer(s) shall satisfy remaining local park requirements
by paying fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to approval of
the first Final Subdivision Map for the project, the project developer(s) shall satisfy the
requirement to provide parkland through the payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. Page 116: The following paragraph will be added under the heading “IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PREVIOUS EIRs”:
The City of Dublin expresses its continued support of the Zone 7 Water Agency Salt
Management Plan. New development in Dublin will continue to pay impact fees to Zone 7
as the time of permit issuance to provide funding for the implementation of the Plan.
11. Page 117: The first paragraph on this page, Table 4.4-1, and the third paragraph on
this page shall be modified as follows based on updated information from DSRSD.
The updated data does not change the conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s
impact due to wastewater generation is less than significant.
Estimated wastewater generation. DSRSD staff estimated the generation of wastewater
from The Green project as compared to the approved use of 305,000 sq. ft. of General
Commercial that would occur under currently approved development plans. This is shown
on Table 4.4-1, below. The table shows that the project would generate an additional
estimated 68,135 50,885 gallons of wastewater per day at build-out over the amount of
wastewater expected to be generated by the approved General Commercial use.
Table 4.4-1. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Wastewater Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Use Factor Wastewater (GPD)
Approved Use
General Commercial
Estimated Wastewater
Demand
305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.05 gpd/sq ft 250 500 gpd
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 7
City of Dublin August 2014
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.6 gpd/sq ft 21,000 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condominium
Townhouse
193 400 DU
207 DU
165 120 gpd/DU
220 gpd/DU
31,845 48,000 gpd
45,540 gpd
Total Estimated Project Wastewater Demand 98,635 52,000 gpd
Difference between Approved Project and Proposed Project +68,135 21,500 gpd
with Proposed
Project
Source: Stan Kolodzie, 4/25/14 Ryan Pendergraft, DSRSD, 5/29/2014
Therefore, the District has adequate wastewater treatment capacity at the regional plant to
accommodate the estimated 68,135 81,385 gallons of wastewater that would be generated
per day. No new or expanded wastewater facilities would be needed to serve the proposed
project nor would the amount of additional wastewater flows exceed the Regional Water
Board’s approved limit of the DSRSD wastewater treatment plan. The amount of additional
wastewater would result in a less-than-significant impact on a project and cumulative level.
12. Page 129: The last paragraph on this page and Table 4.4-6 shall be modified as
follows based on updated information from DSRSD. The updated data does not
change the conclusion in the DSEIR that the project’s impact due to water supply
demand is less than significant.
Supplemental water use impact. DSRSD UWMP includes demand from the development
of a 305,000 square foot retail/commercial project on the project site under the existing City
entitlements. Based on Table 4.4-6 below, this use would require an estimated 30,500
gallons per day at full build-out. The proposed project would generate an estimated need for
101,650 52,000 gallons of potable water per day, which would be an estimated 71,150
21,500 gallons of water per day greater than anticipated water demand in the DSRSD
UWMP. The project would use recycled water for exterior landscape irrigation and other
exterior uses. Therefore, estimated water use shown in Table 4.4-6 E does not include use
of potable water for landscape irrigation.
Table 4.4-6. The Green Project-Estimated Daily Water Demand (gallons/day)
Land Use Amount Water Use Factor Water Use (GPD)
Approved Use included in DSRSD UWMP
General Commercial 305,000 sq. ft. 0.1 gpd/sq ft 30,500 gpd
Proposed Project Uses
Retail/Commercial 5000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.05 gpd/sq ft 250 500 gpd
Restaurant 35,000 sq. ft. 0.1 0.6 gpd/sq ft 21,000 3,500 gpd
Residential
Condo/Townhouse 400 DU 201 120 gpd/DU 80,400 48,000 gpd
Est. Water Demand. 101,650 52,000 gpd
Difference +71,150 21,500 gpd
Source: Stan Kolodzie, 4/13/14 Ryan Pendergraft, DSRSD, 5/29/2014
13. Page 132: The following paragraph shall be modified as follows:
Biological communities. Table 4.4-1 4.5-1 summarizes the area of each biological
community type observed in the Project Area. Non-sensitive biological communities in the
Project Area include non-native annual grassland and ruderal herbaceous stands. One
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 8
City of Dublin August 2014
potentially sensitive biological community is found in the project area. Descriptions for each
biological community are contained in the following sections.
14. Page 134: The following paragraph will be added under the heading “Present
Species”:
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. Present. A
breeding bird survey was conducted on April 22, 2014 by a WRA wildlife biologist. During
the visit, one active loggerhead shrike nest was observed in a coyote bush along the
northern fence of the Project Area, located near the Martinelli Way gate.1 The female was
observed incubating the nest and the male was foraging in the area. Any potential impacts
to this species will be reduced to less than significant by Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
15. Page 142: The following paragraph will be added after Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-1:
Given the presence of California Tiger Salamander (CTS) in the Eastern Dublin area,
mitigation of project wetlands impacts off-site through the implementation of SM-BIO-1 may
have impacts on CTS. The potential impacts on CTS from development and the
implementation of mitigation measures in Eastern Dublin and adjacent areas was studied in
the 1993 EDSP EIR, and Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, MM 3.7/21.0, and MM 3.7/22.0 were
developed to address these impacts. The types of potential impacts on the CTS from any
off-site mitigation due to the implementation of SM-BIO-1 would be similar to the impacts
described and analyzed in the 1993 EDSP EIR. The 1993 EDSP EIR mitigation measures
noted above would apply to any future impacts of off-site mitigation and current regulatory
requirements by resource agencies would apply as well. With the implementation of the
1993 EDSP EIR mitigation measures and current regulatory requirements, the potential
impact on the CTS due to off-site implementation of mitigation measures to address project
wetlands impacts would be reduced to less than significant as identified in the 1993 EDSP
EIR.
16. Page 142: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and other
special-status plant species). Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be
conducted on the site consistent with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s 2009
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural
Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period throughout
the blooming period of those special-status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or
three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of plants listed in
Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR) Table 4.4-
1. If populations/stands of a special-status species are identified during the surveys and
impacts cannot be avoided, , compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the
acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, purchase
of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected species, or
payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g.. a local land
trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations. The location of
1 Valcarcel, Tricia. 2014. Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California (survey letter
report). April 22, 2014. 3pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 9
City of Dublin August 2014
mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish
and Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife. In the case where
special-status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the
mitigation approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy in consultation with the City’s consulting biologist. Off-site
compensatory shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For
off-site mitigation options, measures shall be implemented (including contingency
measures) providing for the long-term protection of these species.
17. Page 144: Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 shall be modified as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to breeding birds). Vegetation
removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during the non-breeding
season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will occur from February 1
to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted no more than
14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests found shall be protected by a
minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer size may vary depending on bird species, the
location of the nest, and other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-
status species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a 100-foot
buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of
special-status species, the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based
on any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
18. Page 190. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-4 shall be modified as follows:
SM-AQ-4 (project generation of greenhouse gas emissions). The final design of the
project shall include all requirements of the City Climate Action Plan, including policies A.1.4
(Bicycle Parking Requirements), A.1.5 (Streetscape Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan
Community Design and Sustainability Element), A.1.9 (Work with LAVTA to Improve
Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED Streetlight Specifications), A.3.1
(Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance), A.3.6 (Commercial Recycling). In addition,
the project proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate
Action Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5 (Commercial
Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7 (Multi-
Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection).
Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below
the significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use reduction goal
of at least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be developed by the project
applicant that may include measures such as the installation of low-flow water fixtures in
showers and sinks, low-flush toilets, and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project
applicant shall implement a solid waste recycling program through recycling and composting
strategies, which results in a project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent.
Finally, the project shall exceed 2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMod is
based on) by at least 20 percent in terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement
the supplemental list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to
the Final SEIR.
19. Page 207: The first paragraph on this page shall be modified as follows:
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 10
City of Dublin August 2014
Alternative 3- Campus Office Development. Under this alternative the site would be
developed consistent with the existing Campus Office General Commercial General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation. This Alternative considers
construction of up 218,000 square feet of administrative, business and professional offices
and a Floor Area Ratio of 0.1835, consistent with the concept of a low-rise office campus
nearby properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Development of this alternative
would also include on-site surface parking lots, landscaping, signs and similar improvements
normally and customarily included in an office park development.
20. Page 213: Add Paul McCreary, Parks and Community Facilities Director to the list of
persons consulted under heading “City of Dublin Staff”.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 11
City of Dublin August 2014
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the public comment period on the
DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other interested parties.
Commenter Date
No. State Agencies
1.1 Department of Transportation 6/23/14
Local Agencies
2.1 Alameda County Public Works Agency 6/17/14
2.2 Alameda County Transportation
Commission
6/18/14
2.3 Alameda County Community
Development Agency
6/23/14
2.4 Dublin San Ramon Services District 6/23/14
Other Comments
3.1 Adams Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo 6/23/14
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 12
City of Dublin August 2014
Responses to DSEIR Comment Letters
Letter 1.1: California Department of Transportation
Comment 1.1.1: The commenter notes that the anticipated number of project trips (589 vehicles
in the a.m. peak and 650 in the pm peak) would result in impacts to the I-580/Hacienda Drive
interchange. The DSEIR should include a traffic analysis since more than 100 vehicles per hour
would result. The traffic analysis should also include turning movements per study intersection
under Existing, Project Only, 2035 and 2035 Cumulative + Project Conditions.
Response: Please see Tables 4.2-6, 4.2-7, 4.2-8, 4.2-14, 4.2-15, and 4.2-16 of the
DSEIR for the requested traffic analysis associated with this Caltrans facility.
Additionally, TR -11, TR -14, and TR 17 provides information on Arterial Level of Service
analysis along Hacienda Drive corridor in the vicinity of the I-580 interchange. .
Comment 1.1.2: The commenter requests the traffic impact fees to be used for project
mitigation. Development fees should require traffic impact fees based on projected traffic
volumes and/or cost estimated for public transportation fees necessitated by development.
Response: As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and other applicable City
fee resolutions, the project developer will be required to pay the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact Fee in place at the time building permits are issued. The Eastern
Dublin Traffic Impact Fee is designed to fund a wide variety of roadway, pedestrian,
bicycle and public transportation improvements throughout the Eastern Dublin
Planning Area. Additionally, the project developer will pay the Tri-Valley
Transportation Development Fees (TVTD) and Freeway Interchange Fee, both of
which will help fund regional transportation improvements.
Comment 1.1.3: The commenter requests that safety mitigation measures should be addressed
for the I-580 and Hacienda Drive interchange and the I-580 mainline. Coordination with Caltrans
is requested regarding roadway recovery zones, outer separation, fixed object and other items.
Response: The City of Dublin has always coordinated with Caltrans regarding traffic
safety and will continue to do so in the future. In regard to the Green project, the
development is proposed to occur wholly on private lands and no encroachment into
Caltrans right-of-way is required. The Project will not have any impacts on the safety
of the I-580 and Hacienda Drive interchange and the I-580 main line, so no safety
mitigation measures are required for the Project.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 13
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.1: Alameda County Public Works Agency
Comment 2.1: The commenter has reviewed the Notice of Preparation and has no comment on
the project.
Response: Comment noted. No further response is required.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 14
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.2: Alameda County Transportation Commission
Comment 2.2.1: On page 67 of the DSEIR, the document notes that a 5 percent trip reduction
has been assumed for walk to BART trips. This assumption may be low given proximity to
heavy rail and the proposed project density and land use mix. No trip reductions have been
taken for external trips by walking or bicycling even though the project would be located in close
proximity to shopping, dining and similar uses. Consideration should be given to using a trip
generation methodology to more accurately reflect transit-oriented developments or using a trip
reduction that is based on observed data from similar projects
Response: As for various other projects in this area, ITE trip generation manual, and
User’s Guide and Handbook were used for this project to generate trips for different land
uses. As per the ITE guidelines, vehicular trips were adjusted for Internal Trips
(Appendix 6 of the DSEIR), and for the Pass By trips (Table 4.2-4). Additionally a total of
5% trip reduction was applied for bicycle, pedestrian and transit trips in the area
including commercial developments to the north (Persimmon Place). The DSEIR
provides a brief discussion on the trip reduction approach on Page 67. Staff feels that
the trip adjustments are consistent with transportation mode share in the project vicinity.
Comment 2.2.2: Impact TR-1 and supplemental mitigation measure TR-1 analyzes impacts to
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road intersection. The DSEIR should provide an assessment of
potential secondary impacts to other road users from the proposed supplemental mitigation
measure as is done for other impacts in the DSEIR.
Response: City’s thresholds of significance evaluate primary impacts to signalized
intersections which includes an evaluation of congestion and delays to vehicles. Similar
to many other traffic analyses that have been conducted in the City, the Synchro traffic
model was utilized for this project for the signalized intersection analyses. This model
inherently addresses pedestrian and bicycle access issues. For example, the model
allocates green time for all modes of transportation on the basis of pedestrian crossing
times at a crosswalk, and therefore the potential for secondary impacts to other road
users have already been accounted for in the analysis and there are no impacts
identified.
Comment 2.2.3: The commenter requests that the City consider other elements as part of a
proposed TDM such as minimum requirements for quality of bicycle parking, level of parking
provision, parking restrictions and parking pricing strategies.
Response: On-site parking provisions are governed by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and,
at present, the Ordinance does not include policies on parking pricing or parking
restrictions. Also, these types of measures are not feasible for the proposed type of
development in Dublin. It is Staff’s opinion that due to the close proximity of the project
site to the BART station, and the site should include TDM measures to help meet the
future needs of resident and businesses. As per the mitigation measure SM-TR-2, the
City would require bicycle parking at a rate of 20% or an amount approved by the City, of
the required vehicular parking spaces. As part of the Site Development Review
application for the project, Staff has ensured that long-term bicycle parking will be
accommodated in bike lockers in addition to the short-term parking in bike racks. In
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 15
City of Dublin August 2014
addition, Conditions of Approval are being applied to the project that will require the
development of a TDM plan that contains those measures identified in Alternative
Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 as well as additional measures that will be aimed at
reducing the need for parking and single-occupant vehicle use in the residential units at
the project site. At the time of review of the full TDM plan proposed by the
Applicant/Developer, the City’s Traffic Engineer will assess the additional measures
included in the plan to supplement those noted in Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-TR-
2.
Comment 2.2.4: Impact TR-4 and supplemental mitigation measure TR-4 analyzes impacts to
Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection. The DSEIR should provide an assessment
of potential secondary impacts to other road users from the proposed supplemental mitigation
measure as is done for other impacts in the DSEIR.
Response: The commenter is directed to the response to Comment 2.2.2, above.
Comment 2.2.5: Pages 82 and 83 of the DSEIR discuss a grade separated crossing for
pedestrians and bicyclists near the Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive intersection. The DSEIR
should clarify if project developers will be required to make mitigation payments towards
construction of this facility prior to the occupancy of the last building on the project site or prior
to the issuance of the first building permit.
Response: Since the grade-separated crossing has not yet been environmentally
cleared, and to ensure that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the project developer
is required to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing
the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
The timing for payment of fair share fee is prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Comment 2.2.6: Regarding information on pages 106 and 107 of the DSEIR, commenter
requests that the City encourages design of project streets to promote walking and bicycling and
provide for additional treatment of bicycle facilities to facilitate mobility and safety at high volume
intersections near the site.
Response: Please see Supplemental Impacts review on pages 106 to 108 of the DSEIR,
including mitigation measures SM-TR-18, 19, and 20, which require compliance with the
City’s Bikeways Master Plan, Complete Streets policies, and other plans that promote
pedestrian and bicycle travel. Through Staff’s review of the Site Development Review
plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project, Staff has ensured that bicycle and
pedestrian access is enhanced both inside the project and on the public streets in the
project vicinity. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that has been reviewed
will be further refined at the time Staff reviews the off-site improvement plans, and
special attention will be paid to maintain safety and access for alternate modes of
transportation at all intersections.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 16
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.3: Alameda County Community Development Agency
Comment 2.3.1: The commenter notes concerns about the potential conflicts between the
proposed mixed-use project and future office development on property to the west. Pursuant to
the Dublin Transit Center Specific Plan that governs development to the west, office buildings of
up to 10 stories are allowed with 15-foot wide setbacks from Arnold Road on the eastern
boundary of the site. Future development on the Transit Center site, which could extend to 150
feet in height, could cast shadows on the westerly portion of The Green site.
Response: The potential for shade and shadow impacts on The Green site cannot be
analyzed in a meaningful way at this point in time because there is no proposed or
known development plans for Site D-2 on the Dublin Transit Center immediately to the
west of The Green project. Therefore, this impact cannot be accurately analyzed.
CEQA only requires the analysis of the Project’s impact on the environment. The
potential for shade and shadow due to development of the Site D-2 will be reviewed by
the City of Dublin at the time specific development proposals are filed for Site D-2.
Comment 2.3.2: There could be other compatibility issues between development on the Dublin
Transit site to the west and the project site, including construction noise, night lighting and
privacy concerns.
Response: The potential for construction noise impacts on The Green site will be less-
than-significant since future development projects on the Transit Center site will be
required to prepare and implement a Construction Noise Management Plan pursuant to
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 of the certified Dublin Transit Center EIR. This Construction
Noise Management Plan is required to contain, at minimum, limitation on the hours of
construction, use of mufflers on construction equipment, limitations on on-site
construction traffic speeds and similar items. Therefore, there would be no impact with
respect to construction noise.
The potential for spillover of light from the Transit Center site onto the Green site will be
reviewed by the City of Dublin Community Development Department Staff as part of
future Site Development Review applications for specific projects on Site D-2, once
submitted to the City.
The comment regarding future privacy concerns is not a CEQA issue and is not required
to be addressed in the DSEIR.
Comment 2.3.3: The commenter notes that the potential for future land use compatibility will be
greatest if lower residential development is allowed on the site. Typically, “Medium Density”
development in Dublin has resulted in single-family detached development dwellings which may
not be appropriate on this site.
Response: Please see Response to Comments 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 on issues regarding
alleged impacts of future office development on Site D-2 of the Transit Center and The
Green residential development The residential development on site will be a
combination of stacked-flat condominiums and townhouses in buildings that are primarily
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 17
City of Dublin August 2014
three- and four-stories with occasional two-story elements. There are no single-family
detached units proposed on the project site.
Comment 2.3.4: The commenter notes that future office development within the Dublin Transit
Center is a goal of the Surplus Property Authority and the City of Dublin. Residential
development on The Green site may not be compatible with office uses planned to the west of
the project site on the Transit Center site and may reduce the value of this property. The City is
encouraged to consider additional supplemental mitigation measures: increasing the residential
setback along Arnold Road to minimize future shade and shadow, construction noise and
privacy, proper noticing of future residents of planner mid-rise offices on the Transit Center site
and specifically prohibiting future single-family dwellings on the project site.
Response: Please see Response to Comments 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 on issues
regarding alleged impacts of future office development on Site D-2 of the Transit Center
on The Green. Based on the responses, no mitigation is required for The Green Project.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 18
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 2.4: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
Comment 2.4.1: The commenter notes that DSRSD is the water and sewer service provider
to the City of Dublin and that the project will require new water, recycled water, and
wastewater facilities. The commenter also notes that the provision of services to the project
site must be done in a way so as to not interrupt DSRSD’s ability to continue to provide
service to properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2.4.2: The commenter notes that DSRSD operates a facility adjacent to the
project site and that future use of the project site should not interfere with DSRSD’s ability to
continue to access and use the facility.
Response: Comment noted. The project plans have been designed so that access
to DSRSD’s Turnout 4 will continue to be maintained.
Comment 2.4.3: The commenter notes that as a condition of providing potable water to the
project site, DSRSD will require the project developer to develop and operate a recycled
water distribution system for landscape irrigation on the project site.
Response. Comment noted. The project plans include utilizing recycled water for
irrigation.
Comment 2.4.4: DSRSD will require the Developer to enter into a planning agreement with
DSRSD to cover wastewater collection and wastewater treatment, which will include a
service analysis.
Response: Comment noted.
Comment 2.4.5: Disposal of wastewater in DSRSD’s service area is the responsibility of the
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency.
Response: Comment noted.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 19
City of Dublin August 2014
Letter 3.1: Adams Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo
Exhibits A-P to Letter 3.1 were reviewed for additional comments. Many of the Exhibits are
studies or reference materials cited in the comment letter that do not contain specific
comments on the project (See Exhibits B-P). It was determined that all relevant comments
that appeared in the exhibits (in particular, Exhibit A) were also stated in the body of Letter
3.1 itself. Therefore the exhibits were not annotated for additional comments and
responses. All responses to comments contained in Exhibits A-P are set forth in the
responses to Comment Letter 3.1 below.
Comment 3.1.1: The commenter states that the DSEIR fails to comply with the requirements
of CEQA and may not be used as part of the project approval. The commenter also
includes a Statement of Interests of the commenters. The Commenter generally states that
the DSEIR fails as an informational document and will result in significant adverse impacts.
The Comment contains a summary of the comments which are explained in more detail in
the Letter. The DSEIR does not adequately identify, evaluate and mitigate these potentially
significant impacts, including potential contamination of the site, reliance on out-of-date
mitigation measures addressing groundwater salinity, impacts to biological resources, lacks
findings regarding traffic impacts and does not include all feasible greenhouse gas impact
mitigation. The document must therefore be withdrawn and revised to correct the above
deficiencies.
Response: The commenter’s assertions regarding deficiencies of the DSEIR are
noted but are not correct. The City believes the DSEIR accurately and correctly
identifies the environmental baseline for each topic, provides a thorough analysis of
each potentially significant and provides feasible measures to mitigate most
significant impacts except for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable.
The specific responses to the general allegations made in this Comment are
contained in the following responses to comments in the remainder of these
responses.
Comment 3.1.2: The two main purposes of CEQA are to (1) inform decision makers and
public about the significant environmental impacts of the Project; and (2) avoid or reduce
significant environmental impacts where possible. The DSEIR fails to completely describe
the project and project setting and fails to disclose all potentially significant impacts.
Proposed mitigation measures are unenforceable, vague or undefined so the effectiveness
cannot be evaluated.
Response: The City believes that the commenter’s assertions are incorrect and The
Green DSEIR is fully consistent with the purposes and requirements of CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines. See below responses to comments for specific response to
general issues raised in this comment.
Comment 3.1.3: The DSEIR fails to disclose impacts or provide adequate mitigation for risks
from contaminated soils, including contamination from contaminated soil vapor, the potential
for herbicide contaminated soils and other discolored soils on the project site. No testing or
mitigation is identified for this contamination. Failure to identify, disclose and mitigate
potential contamination puts workers and residents at risk.
Response: See Responses to Comments 3.1-4 through 3.1.8, below.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 20
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.4: The DSEIR fails to disclose or evaluate the potential for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) on the site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends
an analysis of potential contamination from this source, including a human health risk
assessment.
Response: The DSEIR notes that the project site has been remediated from
contamination from previous site users for commercial and other non-residential
users as approved by the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
(ACDEH). The ACDEH will permit the site to be utilized for residential use only after
evaluation of the site as required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. SM-
HAZ-1 notes that, if required by the ACDEH, additional testing of the site for
acceptability of the site for residential use may well be required and, if required by
the ACDEH, remediation of potentially contaminated materials may be required,
including any VOCs found on the site. As required by Supplemental Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, no grading or construction can occur until authorized by the
ACDEH. Therefore, this impact will be fully mitigated in accordance with the
requirements of the ACDEH and, after ACDEH-approved remediation has occurred,
no impacts will remain with respect to VOCs.
Since the publication of the DSEIR, the Project Applicant/Developer and their
technical consultants have been in contact with the ACDEH to determine a suitable
Workplan for Further Investigation for the site. On June 11, 2014, the ACDEH
provided the Project Applicant/Developer with a letter noting that the proposed
workplan has been conditionally approved by the ACDEH (Attachments 4 and 5) and
that investigation on the site as outlined in the approved scope of work could
commence. Based on the foregoing, no revisions to the DSEIR are required.
Comment 3.1.5: The site could be contaminated by herbicides that were commonly used on
former military sites. The DSEIR fails to require any risks from this contaminant and does
not require any additional sampling or testing of the soil. No mitigation measures are
included in the DSEIR and a revised DSEIR should be prepared to disclose the results on
testing for herbicides.
Response: As noted above, the project site cannot be used for residential
development until reviewed and cleared by the ACDEH. A Workplan for Further
Investigation has been approved for the site by the ACDEH, which requires soil and
groundwater sampling in the former Fuel Depot area, shallow soil sampling along the
former Railroad Spur, sampling of soil stockpiles, and sampling for metals at five
locations on the project site. If it is determined by the ACDEH to be necessary
beyond the sampling noted above, the ACDEH may require additional sampling and
testing for potential presence of herbicides at concentrations above ACDEH
regulatory threshold levels. If found, significant concentrations of herbicide on the
site will be required to be remediated prior to site grading or excavation. Therefore,
this impact will be fully mitigated and no impacts will remain with respect to
herbicides, and revisions to the DSEIR are not warranted.
Comment 3.1.6: The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment identifies a small patch of
discolored soil on the site that may be contaminated. The DSEIR fails to disclose this and
does not require any additional testing or mitigation for this potential contamination. The
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 21
City of Dublin August 2014
DSEIR’s failure to disclose this potential contamination violates CEQA requirements to
describe the project’s environmental setting, evaluate all potential impacts and provide
mitigation measures to the extent feasible.
Response: As noted in the responses to comments 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 above, the
ACDEH has approved a Workplan for Further Investigation on the project site. The
results of the further investigation will identify those measures to be taken that are
necessary to ensure that the site meets ACDEH standards for residential occupancy.
If required by the ACDEH, the discolored soil will be required to be remediated if
found to be contaminated above ACDEH standards. Any soil remediation plan will
include measures to address any re-use and/or disposal of contaminated soil.
Therefore, the DSEIR provides adequate mitigation for any potential soil
contamination on-site and there is no need for revisions to the DSEIR.
Comment 3.1.7: The DSEIR fails to disclose any potential impacts from a small stockpile of
soil on the site, including potential re-use on the site and the possibility of off-site disposal.
The failure of the DSEIR to disclose, evaluate and mitigate potential impacts from this small
soil stockpile violates CEQA.
Response: Please see the response to Comment 3.1.6 above. The DSEIR does
provide adequate mitigation with respect to this topic.
Comment 3.1.8: The DSEIR must be revised to adequately disclose and investigate
potentially contaminated materials and provide appropriate mitigation measures to protect
the health and safety of construction workers.
Response: The Green DSEIR adequately describes hazardous conditions on the site
and provides adequate mitigation to ensure the protection of workers and adjacent
residents. Any future remediation plan/Corrective Action Plan that is approved by
ACDEH will include measures to protect the health and safety of construction
workers by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Health and Safety Plan
that addresses the safe handling and transportation of contaminated soil (See
Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-1). Revisions to the DSEIR are not
warranted.
Comment 3.1.9: The DSEIR is legally inadequate since it fails to address potential impacts
related to groundwater salinity raised by a Trustee Agency, Zone 7. Although identified as
an impact in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0, this mitigation measure no longer adequately reduces salinity
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Recent studies by the Zone 7 water agency indicate
that with the increased use of recycled water, additional studies need to be done to mitigate
salinity of groundwater. The commenter notes that the DSEIR failure to disclose and
evaluate this impact violates CEQA’s disclosure requirements and the document must be
revised to provide a meaningful evaluation of these impacts.
Response: The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the impact of the use of recycled water
on the main groundwater basin, including salinity. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
groundwater salinity as a potential impact and included a mitigation measure
requiring coordination of recycled water projects with Zone 7's salt mitigation
program to mitigate this impact to less than significance. Mitigation Measure
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 22
City of Dublin August 2014
3.5/20.0 requires construction of a recycled water distribution system to be in
accordance with all applicable regulations of the State Department of Health
Services, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7.
The commenter offers no validation to the claim and is incorrect when stating that the
“Zone 7 District itself, has stated that based on new information, its current mitigation
is no longer sufficient.” The actual letter from Zone 7 staff dated August 9, 2013, in
response to the Notice of Preparation, merely requests that “potential impacts to
groundwater quality need be considered in the supplemental CEQA review.”
The same letter notes Zone 7’s appreciation of “Dublin’s support of Zone 7’s efforts
in managing and mitigating the salinity of the Livermore Groundwater Basin through
our Salt Management Plan and groundwater demineralization operations.” The Salt
Management Plan can be found on Zone 7’s website at:
http://www.zone7water.com/publications-reports/reports-planning-documents/158-
salt-management-plan-2004
City of Dublin Staff’s recent discussions with Zone 7 Staff have revealed that the
project site has been included in Zone 7 calculations for use of recycled water
(Source: Tom Rooze, Zone 7, 2014). As noted in the Salt Management Plan, one of
the main goals of the Plan is to “to achieve sustainable groundwater quality as well
as quantity and to allow for increased use of recycled water . . .” The use of recycled
water for irrigation at The Green Project is consistent with this goal and subject to
Plan requirements.
Further, the proposed Green project will be required to pay water connection fees to
Zone 7 to assist in funding the District’s Salt Management Plan (source: J. Chahal,
Zone 7, 2014). Zone 7 also requests that the City include a statement in the Final
SEIR requiring continued support of Zone 7 in implementing Zone 7’s Salt
Management Plan (See Clarifications and Modifications section of the Final SEIR).
Comment 3.1.10: The DSEIR is inadequate because it fails to establish the environmental
setting of the project resulting in inadequate disclosure and assessment of the project’s
potentially significant biological impacts. Specifically, this includes the proximity of the
project’s Congdon Tarplant population and other important populations of this plant, an
identification of other special-status plant species on the project site, impacts to burrowing
owl populations, the presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp on the site and the presence of
protected bat species on the site. The DSEIR fails to adequately describe the existing
environmental setting which is needed to meaningfully analyze project impacts. The DSEIR
analysis is based on a single limited non-protocol level reconnaissance survey that was not
adequate to establish biological resources on the site. As a result, the City lacks substantial
evidence to support a determination that proposed mitigation measures will be sufficient to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Response: For responses to particular comments summarized in this comment, see
later responses to comments. On the issue of inadequate description of or
information on existing setting, the commenter is incorrect. During preparation of the
DSEIR, the project site was thoroughly traversed by both a wildlife biologist and a
botanist/wetland specialist on the WRA staff on August 1, 2013. The level of detail
used in these surveys was equivalent to a rare plant survey and a burrowing owl
survey. The surveys occurred at an ideal time for observing late-blooming plant
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 23
City of Dublin August 2014
species such as Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii). The
surveys also occurred during the portion of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
nesting season when owls and owl sign are most detectable (later spring/ summer
when chicks are viewable outside the burrow) and evidence of use most abundant.
WRA biologists are experts in assessing properties for the habitat conditions likely to
support special status species, so the onsite observations provide substantial
evidence for the determination of whether additional special status species are likely
to occur there. Protocol surveys for special status species were not recommended
for the Project Site because either suitable habitat was not present, or because (in
the case of burrowing owl) there was no evidence of site use. Under these
circumstances, the preconstruction survey for burrowing owl required in the DSEIR is
a sufficient measure to verify that the burrowing owls are not present. However, the
mitigation provides measures to ensure that if any burrowing owl is found on-site,
impacts to the burrowing owl will be reduced to less than significant. Similarly, while
the site appears to be unsuitable for most spring-blooming rare plant species, a
spring survey for rare plants was required as mitigation in the DSEIR to verify
absence or require compensatory mitigation for any protected plants that are found.
As the commenter notes, “a City has discretion to determine what protocol level
surveys may be necessary to provide a complete and accurate description of the
project setting.” In the case of The Green, the City of Dublin reasonably relied on the
expert biological analysis completed for the DSEIR and included supplemental
mitigation measures based on the existing environmental setting for the project.
Comment 3.1.11: The DSEIR lacks sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that vernal
pool fairy shrimp are unlikely to occur on the site. The site has four seasonal wetlands that
have the potential to support this species. The applicant has not conducted protocol-level
surveys needed to determine the presence of vernal pool fair shrimp. The commenter claims
that vernal pool fairy shrimp may also exist in vernal-pool like habitats and the DSEIR
provides no evidence that vernal pool habitat is necessary for this species to occur on the
site. The commenter also notes that disking and grading of the site do not preclude the
potential presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp. Although the DSEIR notes that seasonal
wetlands on the site appear to be the result of past alterations of the landscape, these
wetlands have existed long enough to be dominated by plants often found in seasonal
wetlands. This indicates that the wetlands have not been disked for several years, which is
long enough for vernal pool fairy shrimp to colonize or recolonize the site following
disturbance. Therefore, since potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp exists on the site,
protocol-level surveys should have been conducted to confirm or refute the presence of this
species.
Response: As described in the above response, WRA biologists are experts at
assessing properties for the habitat conditions likely to support special status
species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan,
vernal pool complexes [including wetlands] that cannot support a viable population
are not considered suitable for vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS; Branchinecta lynchi)2.
The seasonal wetlands onsite are not natural features, but were recently created in
2008 during development activities3. Prior to 2008, the project site was maintained in
2 USFWS. 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon.
3 WRA. 2013. Delineation of Waters of the U.S., “The Green” Mixed Use Project, Dublin, Alameda County,
California. 59pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 24
City of Dublin August 2014
a developed state for many decades and did not contain wetlands on or adjacent to
the site4. Soil disturbance such as grading and disking has occurred numerous
times, going back many decades. There are no records of VPFS occurring on the
project site or within 5 miles of the site5; and there are no areas of suitable VPFS
habitat within more than 5 miles67. Therefore, contrary to assertions made by the
commenter, land management actions at the site in combination with an absence of
available suitable habitat on and contiguous with the site preclude these features
from supporting a viable population over time and thus are not suitable for VPFS.
The commenter further suggests that VPFS could have colonized the seasonal
wetlands on the site in the period of time since their creation in 2008. However,
according to the USFWS, flooding and wildlife movement within vernal pool
complexes are the only documented dispersal mechanisms for VPFS8. Based on
this, it is highly unlikely that pools may have been colonized given the absence of
any suitable habitat in the vicinity. Given these facts and observations, there is no
substantial evidence or reasonable basis to believe that VPFS could be present on
the project site, and thus protocol surveys are unwarranted.
Comment 3.1.12: The commenter notes that the DSEIR fails to establish the scope of the
burrowing owl population of on the project site and fails to disclose the status and
demography of the local and regional burrowing owl population that may be affected by loss
of potential breeding and foraging habitat. Although the DSEIR acknowledges that the site
provides potential burrowing habitat, it fails to conduct the surveys necessary to establish
the scope of burrowing owl habitat use of the site. Instead, efforts were limited to a single
reconnaissance-level survey during an unreliable time of year for establishing owl use of the
site. In addition, the document fails to disclose the amount of burrowing owl habitat on the
site. California Department of Fish & Wildlife have concluded that four independent surveys
are necessary to determine presence of owls and data from the four surveys are necessary
for avoiding, minimizing and properly mitigating the impacts of the project.
The DSEIRs also underreports the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site and the
amount of habitat that would be eliminated by the project. The commenter notes that the
amount of potential habitat on the site is 27.79 acres, more than double the amount reported
in the DSEIR.
The DSEIR also fails to disclose the proximity of nearby Camp parks burrowing habitat and
the continuing vitality of burrowing owl in the region. Burrowing owl populations have been
extirpated or nearly extirpated in much of the Bay Area and are now generally found in the
Altamont Hills and the Camp Parks area. The DSEIR must be revised to establish and
disclose the proximity and importance of the Camp Parks burrowing owl population in order
that the project’s potential impacts to this core population may be evaluated and appropriate
mitigation identified.
4 City of Dublin. 2003. IKEA Draft Supplemental EIR. State Clearinghouse #2003092076.
5 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity
Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2013-July 2014.
6 California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). 2014. EcoAtlas. http://www.ecoatlas.org. Accessed July
2013-July 2014.
7 Google Earth. 2014. Aerial imagery, including historic imagery 1993-2014. Accessed July 2013-July 2014.
8 USFWS. 2007. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation.
USFWS Sacramento. September.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 25
City of Dublin August 2014
Response: WRA biologists concluded that burrowing owl does not occur on the site
and that the site provides little value as potential breeding or foraging habitat for
nearby owl populations. This conclusion is based on evidence collected during the
site assessment which corresponded with a period in which signs from recent
nesting activities would have been observable
WRA biologists have considerable experience and are experts in conducting
burrowing owl surveys, and the 2013 survey in support of the BRA had a level of
detail equivalent to a burrowing owl survey. WRA biologists have expertise and
experience in recognizing indicators of recent use of a site by this species, such as
pellets, whitewash, feathers, and prey remains typically found near burrows. No owls
or owl signs (indicators) were observed during surveys used as the basis of the
DSEIR, whereas signs have been observed by WRA biologists at other occupied
sites around the Bay Area on a year-round basis. There are no records of burrowing
owl ever using the project site5. A subsequent survey for burrowing owl was also
performed by WRA at the peak of the 2014 breeding season9, which similarly found
no owls or owl sign. Similarly, no owls or owl sign were observed during WRA’s
November 2013 wetland delineation, or during a follow-up visit in March 2014. WRA
has recommended preconstruction surveys as a precautionary measure to confirm
the absence of the species on the site and require mitigation in accordance with
CDFW protocols and standards if burrowing owls are found. These measures are
included in SM-BIO-3. The mitigation measure (SM-BIO-3) requires that the pre-
construction surveys conform with the CDFW protocol for pre-construction surveys.
A series of four surveys was not recommended as a component of the SEIR
because of the lack of indications that owls use the site. The initial site survey, a
subsequent survey, and subsequent site visits support this. The surveys, actions,
and mitigation measure in the SEIR are adequate to address burrowing owl impacts
under CEQA.
The commenter cites the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) 2012
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation10 in support of his recommendation to
conduct multiple surveys for burrowing owl within the project site. It is important to
note that the CDWF staff report provides recommendations with regard to burrowing
owls, not requirements. Based on the considerations described above, it was
determined that multiple surveys within the project site were unwarranted as part of
the SEIR.
The commenter describes the project site as being of potential value for the
population of burrowing owls located in the Camp Parks area to the northeast. It is
important to note that these owls have been consistently observed to utilize the same
general areas, while there are no known records of owls utilizing the project site.
Occurrence records for the Camp Parks population show that the owls typically
utilize two general areas, including a number of contiguous vacant lots approximately
½ mile to 1 mile northeast of the project site, and undeveloped land 1-2 miles north
9 Valcarcel, Tricia. 2014. Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California (survey letter report). April
22, 2014. 3pp.
10 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 36pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 26
City of Dublin August 2014
of the site near the County line.11 Based on these considerations, there is no reason
to believe that the project site is of substantial importance to the burrowing owl
population in the Camp Parks area.
The commenter cites the 2010 Wilkerson and Siegel study as a basis for concluding
owls have been extirpated or nearly extirpated in six San Francisco Bay Area
counties. However, the methodology in this study included only passive
observational surveys performed by volunteers. The commenter notes that it is
difficult to identify a breeding pair through observation alone due to cryptic coloration,
use of burrows, and tendency to flush. Thus a more robust survey would have
included transect surveys to look for evidence of use (or “sign”) such as whitewash,
prey remains, pellets, or feathers. Furthermore, unpublished data from other
consultants has revealed burrowing owls in some Bay Area counties can occur in
taller grassland habitats resulting in fewer owls being identifiable through traditional
passive surveys. Close inspection of a site for evidence of use is likely more reliable
than a few passive surveys and thus, WRA’s assessment provides substantial
evidence for detecting presence or absence of a breeding pair at the site.
Comment 3.1.13: The DSEIR fails to provide sufficient project setting information to describe
special-status plants may occur on the site and to incorporate the results of protocol-level
surveys for these plants. The commenter’s biologist identified the following special-status
plant species that should be surveyed: heartscale, btittlescale, lesser saltscale, big-scale
balsamroot, big tarweed, Mt. Diablo fairy lantern, palmate salty bird’s beak, San Joaquin
spearscale, Diablo helianthella, Brewer’s western flax, shining navarretia, prostrate vernal
pool navarettia, saline clover. Mitigation measure SM-BIO-2 refers to the wrong table in the
SEIR.
Response: The level of detail used in the surveys in support of the DSEIR, including
a thorough traversal of the project site by an experienced and expert botanist, was
equivalent to a rare plant survey for late-blooming species. WRA biologists are
experts and very experienced in surveying for special-status plants and are
experienced in recognizing the habitat conditions likely to support these species. In
many cases, WRA biologists have firsthand experience with the particular species of
special-status plants known to occur in the San Francisco Bay Area. Even during a
late-season survey such as the one performed in support of the DSEIR, numerous
indications inform biologists about the habitat conditions and plant species likely to
be present earlier in the growing season. For example, in many cases the senesced
(older) remains of early-season vegetation are still present and recognizable. The
associations of these species along with topography and other factors allow for an
understanding of the community types present and whether adequate conditions
exist to support rare plants. Based on these observations during the survey, all early-
season (spring-blooming) special status plant species known to occur in the vicinity
were determined to be unlikely to occur or to have no potential for occurrence.
However, as a precautionary measure, an early-season survey for special-status
plants and potential additional mitigation are requirements of the DSEIR (SM-BIO-2).
11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and
Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Sacramento, CA. Accessed July 2013 – July 2014.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 27
City of Dublin August 2014
With regard to late-blooming special-status plant species known to occur in the
vicinity of the Project Site, the fact that the species was not observed along with a
lack of suitable habitat conditions is a sufficient basis to conclude that the species
has no potential to occur onsite, contrary to the commenter’s assertions. In
particular, the survey was conducted at an ideal time for the detection of many of the
species mentioned by the commenter, including heartscale (Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), lesser saltscale (Atriplex miniscula), big
tarweed (Blepharizonia plumosa), palmate salty bird’s beak (Chloropyron palmatum),
and San Joaquin spearscale (Extriplex joaquinana). In addition, the survey occurred
one day outside of the established blooming period for Brewer’s western flax
(Hesperolinon breweri), shining navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians), and
prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), although these species would
likely still have been observable during the survey. For the remaining four species
specifically mentioned by the commenter and any other spring-blooming special-
status plant species, the required spring survey under Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2
would be sufficient for detection of these species if they are indeed present on the
project site and provides measures to address any impacts on protected plants if
found on site.
Regarding the comment on the table, the commenter is correct. The correct
reference should be to Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis
(Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). The Clarifications and Modifications section of the
FSEIR reflects this change.
In summary, the DSEIR adequately addresses the issue of special-status plants for
the following reasons: Surveys in support of the DSEIR detected Congdon’s tarplant
and adequately mapped the population of this species within the Project Site;
surveys in support of the DSEIR confirmed that other late-blooming special-status
species were absent from the site; surveys in support of the DSEIR found that
habitat within the site was of low quality for spring-blooming special-status plant
species, or suitable habitat was absent altogether, such that these species are
unlikely to occur or have no potential for occurrence; a rare plant survey for spring-
blooming species will be conducted as a precautionary measure under Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-2; performing the spring survey after completion of the DSEIR is
adequate due to the low potential for detection of additional special-status plant
species.
Comment 3.1.14: The DSEIR discloses that a robust population of Congdon’s tarplant
occurs on the project site. This species has been identified as a rare and imperiled species.
Additional information is needed in the DSEIR regarding the ecological context of Congdon’s
tarplant population on the site. Without information on the scope and location of this
population, the public and decision makers are precluded from being able to evaluate the
relative severity of the population of this species and from evaluating the sufficiency of
proposed mitigation.
Response: Congdon’s tarplant is distributed from the San Francisco Bay Area to San
Luis Obispo County, California. Clusters of occurrence records signifying regional
populations are centered in the Salinas area, around the margins of South San
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 28
City of Dublin August 2014
Francisco Bay, and in an area from the foothills of Mt. Diablo to the Livermore
Valley12. The latter area includes the project site.
Based on the observations of WRA botanists with experience in the San Francisco
Bay Area and expertise on this plant, Congdon’s tarplant has a fairly wide distribution
with robust populations in many areas, and in areas where the species has been
documented, numerous undocumented occurrences are often found in the
surrounding area. This suggests that the species may merit a rarity designation lower
than what has been assigned by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)13.
Documented occurrences in the Livermore Valley area and undocumented
occurrences such as the population within the project site also suggest that this
species is widely distributed in the vicinity. The distribution of Congdon’s tarplant in
the western portion of the Project Site closely matches the area that received the
most substantial soil disturbance during development activities in 20083,
demonstrating that this species has the ability to respond to disturbance and even
benefit from it. Congdon’s tarplant was not reported within the Project Site during
assessments in 20034, suggesting that this species recently colonized the site or had
a very limited presence on the site prior to earthwork activities in 2008.
Mitigation is required for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant within the project site (see
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2) and the response of this species to
disturbance suggests that this species could be successfully introduced to an
appropriate mitigation site in the vicinity. Due to the project site’s location close to an
urban center, and due to the site’s past and current uses as a development site, the
nearly-isolated population of Congdon’s tarplant within the project site is not ideal for
preservation, and mitigation through establishment of this species at a more
appropriate site would be beneficial for long-term preservation of the species. The
exact details of mitigation will be determined in coordination with CDFW. The
mitigation includes specific standards, such as a minimum 1:1 ratio, allowing for
complete replacement of the population impacted within the project site which will
result in a less than significant impact.
In summary, the DSEIR adequately addresses Congdon’s tarplant for the following
reasons: Congdon’s tarplant has numerous occurrences in the San Francisco Bay
Area and in the Livermore Valley area; the location of Congdon’s tarplant on-site was
specifically determined through surveys; impacts to the population of Congdon’s
tarplant within the site will be mitigated through complete replacement at a site
appropriate for long-term protection; the population of Congdon’s tarplant within the
project site likely appeared or dramatically expanded recently in response to human
activities, and the on-site occurrence does not necessarily represent a natural or
historic population.
Comment 3.1.15: The commenter notes that three special-status bat species (pallid bat,
Townsend’s big-ear bat and Yuma myotis) have a moderate potential of roosting on an
existing building on the site. Surveys were not conducted to determine if any bat species
12 Calflora [web application]. 2014. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database. http://www.calflora.org/
Accessed: July 2013-July 2014.
13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed:
July 2013-July 2014.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 29
City of Dublin August 2014
were using the building as a roost site. The City’s failure to establish baseline conditions
precludes the public, resource agencies and the scientific community from being able to
submit informed comments pertaining to project impacts and from having those comments
vetted during the environmental review process.
Response: WRA biologists assumed presence of bat species on the site. The SEIR
contains a mitigation measure (SM-BIO-5) which requires that a pre-construction
survey be performed prior to building removal and mitigation if bats are found.
Removal of any roost site for these three species is considered a significant impact
regardless of the type of roost and thus baseline surveys do not yield any more
valuable information pertaining to the type of mitigation that would be employed as
both the impact and the mitigation would be the same whether detected initially or in
the future. For these reasons, the assumed presence and mitigation requirement
complies with CEQA standards.
Comment 3.1.16: The DSEIR fails to disclose the potential for the presence of vernal pool
fairy shrimp within on-site seasonal wetlands. As a result, the DSEIR fails to evaluate
potential impacts of the project on this species and fails to include mitigation measures. The
DSEIR lacks substantial evidence to confirm or refute the presence of this species and must
be revised to disclose and evaluate this potential impact.
Response: As discussed in the Response to Comment 3.1.11, the site does not
contain suitable habitat for Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and thus there would be no
impacts to this species and no mitigation would be required.
Comment 3.1.17: The DSEIR fails to disclose the potential for the presence of burrowing owl
habitat on the site and fails to disclose the proximity of the site to critical Camp Parks
burrowing owl populations. As a result, the DSEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts of the
project on this species and fails to include mitigation measures. The DSEIR lacks substantial
evidence to confirm or refute the presence of this species and must be revised to disclose
and evaluate this potential impact.
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.12, WRA biologists
concluded that burrowing owl does not currently occupy the site. While unlikely,
should owls be documented at the site in the future, adequate compensatory
mitigation for the loss of nesting and/or foraging habitat would be done in accordance
with CDFW requirements as stated in the DSEIR (see Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-3).
Comment 3.1.18: The DSEIR fails to evaluate potential impacts to burrowing owls from
proposed temporary or permanent closure of burrows. Proposed supplemental mitigation set
forth in the DSEIR that requires an exclusion plan for burrows is a potentially significant
impact under CDFW guidelines. Temporary or permanent closure may result in a significant
loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction, increased stress on burrowing owls and
reduced reproduction rates, increased depredation, increased energetic costs and risks
associated with the need to find and compete for available burrows, the DSEIR must be
revised to thoroughly analyze these impacts.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 30
City of Dublin August 2014
The commenter notes research that indicates most translocation projects have resulted in
fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the translocated site and translocated projects
have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.
The proposed Supplemental Mitigation Measure is inadequate in that it does not identify
what will happen if avoidance is not feasible during the breeding season. Also, the
Supplemental Mitigation Measure does not require the applicant to establish whether the
burrowing owls occupy the project site until immediately prior (14 days or less) to ground
disturbance. It is impractical to assume the applicant would be able to develop and
implement an effective exclusion plan according to CDFW standards during the narrow time
frame.
Because the DSEIR fails to provide a burrowing owl exclusion plan or fundamental details
associated with that plan, it is impossible for the public, resource agencies and decision
makers to evaluate the probability that there will be significant impacts evicted from project
site. The DSEIR must be revised to provide sufficient detail on proposed eviction activities to
permit the evaluation of impacts from these activities.
Response: Passive relocation activities as prescribed in the 2012 CDFW Staff
Report are considered an avoidance measure to ensure no take occurs as result of
construction activities. If relocation is necessary, such activities will be done in
consultation with CDFW at which time the department may prescribe additional
avoidance measures to ensure any direct or indirect effects are minimized. The
commenter also concludes that most translocation projects are unsuccessful. While
there is some evidence of unsuccessful translocation efforts, there is also evidence
of successful translocation efforts. WRA has conducted highly successful
translocations for previous projects resulting in greater numbers of owl pairs than
previously documented14.
WRA agrees with the commenter that it is impracticable to prepare and implement a
successful relocation plan within 14 days. The purpose of the minimum 14-day
window as set forth in Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 to conduct nest
surveys is based on the potential for owls to re-nest in an area within a short time
frame. If documented, site development would be delayed until approval can be
obtained to passively relocate the owls. Nowhere in the DSEIR does it state that
work will begin within 14 days of the nest survey, only that the survey should be
performed no more than 14 days prior to the planned construction start date.
Comment 3.1.19: The DSEIR’s reliance on protective buffers around any occupied nests to
mitigate impacts of project construction is not supported by substantial evidence because it
fails to identify the buffer size. The mitigation should be revised to reflect CDFW guidelines,
which indicate that buffers may need to be up to 500 meters, depending on the time of year
and level of disturbance. The mitigation measure must be specific, enforceable and feasible
to identify specific standards.
Response: As recommended by WRA biologists, Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3
requires a pre-construction survey prior to site development to ensure no presence
14 WRA, Inc. 2007. Burrowing Owl 2007 Annual Monitoring Report, Pacific Commons Preserve, Fremont,
Alameda County, California. 5pp.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 31
City of Dublin August 2014
of burrowing owls. If owls are determined to be present during the nesting season,
SM-BIO-3 requires that a buffer be established in consultation with CDFW around
the active nest. While the actual buffer distance is not stated, the specific standard is
500 meters. A smaller buffer may be utilized with approval from CDFW; the
minimum buffer for low levels of disturbance is 200 meters.
Comment 3.1.20: The commenter notes that reliance on compensatory mitigation to reduce
impacts to burrowing owl below a level of significance is not supported by substantial
evidence. Proposed compensatory mitigation is vague, unenforceable and inconsistent with
the regional requirements of the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Proposed
supplemental mitigation measures fails to identify specific conditions which would trigger
compensatory mitigation, establish success standards for proposed mitigation and a
mechanism to ensure these standard are met and demonstrate that there is a nearby off-site
location for acquisition of compensatory mitigation.
The mitigation ratio applied to the project must be disclosed in order to permit assessment
of its adequacy. Generally a 1:1 ratio is required to mitigate burrowing owl impacts, but may
not be sufficient to reduce impacts below levels of less-than-significance due to the rapid
decline of species in the immediate vicinity along with the limited scope of nearby remaining
habitat and proximity of the Camp Parks owl population. Adherence to the EACCS
compensatory mitigation should be required at a standardized rate of 3:1 or 3.5:1 if the
mitigation site is in a different core area. Anything less cannot be assumed to reduce
regional impact to a less-than-significant level.
The DSEIR should be revised to include a provision that compensatory mitigation shall be
required for project impacts to burrowing owl and their habitat at the EACCS compensatory
mitigation ratio standard for burrowing owl at a 3:1 ratio. Because the DSEIR does not
contain this provision, the impact to burrowing owl and their habitat would remain significant.
Response: The commenter states that the DSEIR is inadequate because it does not
do the following: 1) identify the specific conditions that would trigger mitigation; 2)
establish success standards for the proposed mitigation; and 3) demonstrate that
there is a nearby off-site location to relocate owls to. Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIO-3 contained in the DSEIR requires that if a breeding pair is found
on the site during the pre-construction survey then additional protection steps would
be required. Standards under the mitigation are based on CDFW standards. The
final mitigation plan would be developed in coordination with CDFW per the
guidelines stated in the 2012 CDFW Staff Report.
While the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) will be used for
guidance, the measures contained in the document are to be used as guidance, not
requirements. The City of Dublin has accepted the EACCS as guidance for public
construction projects, however the City does not require compliance with the EACCS
for private development projects. As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-BIO-3, an appropriate ratio will be determined in consultation with CDFW if owls
are found to nest at the site. The supplemental mitigation measure complies with
CEQA and adequately reduces impacts to burrowing owl to a less-than-significant
level.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 32
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.21: The DSEIR fails to identify what special-status plant species may be
impacted by proposed project construction and the scope and significance of the plant
populations to be impacted. Due to lack of detail in the DSEIR there could be other impacts
and further study is needed. Also, it is impossible to determine whether effective mitigation
may be designed or alternative project designs considered. Supplemental Mitigation
Measure BIO-2 contains requirements that are vague and inconsistent with the Eastern
Alameda County Conservation Strategy. Therefore, the details provided in this supplemental
mitigation measure are not sufficient to support a finding that compliance with this measure
will reduce this impact below a level of significance.
Response: As described in the Response to Comment 3.1.14, the level of mitigation
offered for Congdon’s tarplant is considered to be adequate to reduce the project’s
impact to less than significant based on WRA’s knowledge and expertise with
respect to this species. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 contains specific mitigation
requirements for impacts to Congdon’s tarplant on the project site. The species’
success in re-populating even disturbed sites demonstrates that replacement in an
appropriate nearby mitigation site will be successful. Final details of mitigation will be
determined in coordination with CDFW. The mitigation will be a minimum 1:1 ratio,
allowing for complete replacement of the population impacted within the project site.
While the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) will be used for
guidance, the measures contained in the document are to be used as guidance, not
requirements. The City of Dublin has accepted the EACCS as guidance for public
construction projects. However, the City does not require compliance with the
EACCS for private development projects. .
Comment 3.1.22: The DSEIR notes that bat foraging habitat on a regional scale is not
expected to be significantly impacted on a regional scale. This statement is conclusory and
not supported by any substantial evidence. A substantial amount of bat foraging habitat has
already been lost to urban development and other activities. Remaining habitat is under
threat for conversion. Therefore, loss of bat foraging habitat on the project site is a
potentially significant impact and must be evaluated in a revised DSEIR.
Moreover, the supplemental mitigation included in the DSEIR is insufficient to support a
finding that the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a level of less-
than-significant. Specifically, critical periods of the life cycle of bats vary by species, location
and year. Removal of the existing on-site building during the months of September and
October may not be effective. Also, the DSEIR fails to identify survey techniques to be
implemented. Detection of bats often requires specialized techniques that may be effective
for one species but not another. The DSEIR fails to establish standards to ensure that
preconstruction surveys do not have a significant impact on bats in the existing marketing
building. Pallid bats and Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to be sensitive to human
disturbance. The DSEIR fails to cite or identify standards and policies for any relocation plan
consistent with US Fish & Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Wildlife and
EEACCS standard and policies. Such policies and standards cited in the DSEIR may not
exist. Moreover, even if bats are properly excluded, there may not be a suitable alternative
roost available in the vicinity and the local population may be extinguished. Survey protocols
must be specifically identified by bat species in order to ensure that the proposed mitigation
is effective and meaningful.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 33
City of Dublin August 2014
Response: As discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.15, the loss of any roost site
is a significant impact. Avoidance measures have been prescribed to minimize
impacts. The period from September through October represents the period when
bats are the least likely to be present, thus minimizing any potential for take. A pre-
construction survey to allow removal of the building when bats are not present
reduces potential impacts to a less than significant level by assuring take does not
occur. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 requires that if bats are found, an
appropriate relocation plan shall be prepared consistent with EACCS and in
consultation with CDFW to ensure impacts to special-status bats will be reduced to a
less-than-significant level. The CDFW standard is that relocation and suitable roost
replacement measures must be established through direct consultation with CDFW.
WRA does not agree with the commenter that development of the site would
constitute an impact on a regional scale. This conclusion is based on the small size
of the site compared with suitable habitats in the surrounding regional area not
currently proposed for development.
The commenter notes that pre-construction surveys could potentially impact bats due
to the sensitivity of these species. In fact, the site has been actively disturbed by
human activity for many years including activities which would certainly be loud
enough to disturb roosting bats, if present. Thus, the potential for these species to be
present is likely to be low and thus, only completion of pre-construction surveys is
required. The mitigation measure is sufficient in that in the unlikely event that a pre-
construction survey identifies bats on site, a relocation plan consistent with CDFW
standards and policies would be established.
Comment 3.1.23: The DSEIR does not contain any analysis to substantiate the conclusion
that the proposed project would not cause any new or more severe impacts with respect to
cumulative biological impacts than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (1992) and the IKEA SEIR (2003), a significant
amount of new information has been submitted regarding Congdon’s tarplant, burrowing owl
and other sensitive species. There was no evidence that Congdon’s tarplant existed on the
site when the IKEA SEIR was prepared. In addition, surveys have documented a dramatic
decline in burrowing owl populations in Alameda County and Contra Costa counties. It is
now known that the Camp Parks property plays an important role in the overall persistence
of burrowing owl populations. Previously accepted mitigations are ineffective in conservation
of burrowing owl. The presence of seasonal wetlands is also new information that was not
documented in prior EIRs.
The commenter’s biologist concludes that the project’s incremental contribution to
cumulative impacts to burrowing owl, Congdon’s tarplant, vernal pool fairy shrimp and
special-status bats would be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts cannot be
accurately assessed until the missing baseline pertaining to the above species on the
project is provided. The DSEIR must be revised to evaluate the project’s cumulative impact
on biological resources taking into account new information that is available since the 1992
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Response: The proposed project would not result in new or substantially more
severe significant cumulative impacts to biological resources than identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR. All project and cumulative impacts (except one)
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 34
City of Dublin August 2014
continue to be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR as
augmented and revised by mitigation measures contained in the DSEIR. The one
cumulative impact that remains significant and unavoidable as identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR is the cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive
habitat.
With regard to Congdon’s tarplant, the Project impact will be less than cumulatively
considerable. The impact will be reduced to less than significant through mitigation
requiring 1:1 replacement habitat at a more appropriate site which would be more
beneficial for long-term preservation of the species. The population of Congdon’s
tarplant within the project site appears to have become established or greatly
expanded recently in response to human disturbance. Due to the project site’s
location close to an urban center, and due to the site’s past and current uses as a
development site, the nearly-isolated population of Congdon’s tarplant within the
project site is not ideal for preservation, and mitigation would provide for long-term
preservation of the species.
With regard to the burrowing owl, no owls or owl signs (indicators) were observed
during multiple surveys of the project site. There are no records of burrowing owl
ever using the project site and the project site is located some distance away from
the Camp Parks population of burrowing owls. However, in the event owls are found
during pre-construction surveys, mitigation in conformance with CDFW standards is
required which will reduce any impacts to less than cumulatively considerable (See
Response to Comment 3.1.12).
With regard to wetlands, mitigation will result in no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages through the development and implementation of a wetland mitigation
plan that includes creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands in
accordance with regulatory agency standards. This will reduce any impact to less
than cumulatively considerable. In addition, all wetlands on the site are features
created during development activities on the site in 2008 and are not naturally
occurring. Incidentally created wetlands are relatively common in partially developed
landscapes and rarely support protected plant and wildlife species.
With regard to VPFS, as discussed in Response to Comment 3.1.11, there is no
substantial evidence or reasonable basis to believe that VPFS could be present on
the project site, thus the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
impact to VPFS.
With regard to special-status bats, the presence of bats in the limited building located
on-site is presumed but not known. If bats are found during required pre-
construction surveys, a relocation plan shall be develop and implemented in
accordance with regulatory agency standards. Therefore, the project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to bats (See Response to Comment
3.1.15)
Comment 3.1.24: The DSEIR finds that the project would result in significant and
unavoidable traffic impacts at numerous intersections and roadways. Before a finding of
significant and unavoidable impact can be made, the City must implement all feasible
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 35
City of Dublin August 2014
mitigation measures for such an impact. For this document, not all feasible mitigation
measures have been considered. In addition, several of the mitigation measures are vague
and unenforceable as written
Response: The City disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that not all feasible
mitigation measures have been identified and applied to the project. Proposed
mitigation measures included in the DSEIR are consistent with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines. For those traffic impacts which are identified as significant and
unavoidable, the City will need to make findings regarding the feasibility of proposed
mitigation measures at the time of Project approval in accordance with CEQA.
Comment 3.1.25: Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 sets forth two separate alternative
methods to reduce traffic impacts. at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection
during the PM peak period. The DSEIR concludes that traffic impacts at this intersection
even with implementation of the supplemental mitigation measures. However, the primary
and alternative supplemental mitigation measures are not mutually exclusive and address
different aspects of the project’s impacts. Because neither supplemental mitigation measure
reduces impacts below a level of significance and because both measures are feasible, the
DSEIR errs in stating these supplemental mitigation measures are alternative measures.
Accordingly, both measures should be required to mitigate Impact TR-2 to the fullest extent
feasible.
In addition, the DSEIR must be revised to evaluate potential measures to address
pedestrian and bike safety concerns over Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-1. At a
minimum, the DSEIR should address the feasibility of pedestrian and bicycle overpasses.
Response: As documented in the DSEIR, implementation of additional vehicle lanes
at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersections as outlined in
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 is not feasible or practical. All properties
abutting this intersection are fully built out and purchase of additional right-of-way to
accommodate additional lanes would encroach into parking lots on three corners and
a City public art installation on the southeast corner of this intersection. This, there is
not sufficient right-of-way to construct improvements identified in Supplemental
Mitigation Measure TR-2. Proposed trip reduction measures outlined in Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 would likely reduce peak hour trips through
the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road by some number of trips, however, the
actual amount of trip reduction cannot be measured and may not be sufficiently
effective to reduce project contribution of peak hour trips at the major intersection.
The development of a TDM plan is required by Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-
TR-2.
However, because the reductions in vehicle trips from the TDM measures cannot not
be determined with certainty, the DSEIR finds that Impact TR-2 will be significant and
unavoidable.
The concept advanced by the commenter that one or more pedestrian and bicycle
overpasses be constructed at this intersection is also found to be infeasible due to
the extreme length of raised walkways needed to span these very wide arterial
roadways and lack of sufficient right-of-way to provide for entrances and exits for
such overcrossings. At the time of Project approval, the City will need to make
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 36
City of Dublin August 2014
findings regarding the infeasibility of constructing pedestrian and bicycle
overcrossings at this intersection.
Comment 3.1.26: Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure TR-2 is also inadequate
because it is vague and unenforceable as written. Subsection “h” that would require BART
tickets be provided at no cost or subsidized rates to all employees does not contain any
minimum amount of subsidy. Subsection (i) contains no minimum benefit requirements. With
lack of details and standards, this means that implementation is impermissibly deferred and
the success is uncertain. The supplemental measure should be revised to set forth feasible
minimum subsidy and benefit requirements. For instance, the City of Santa Monica requires
a minimum transit pass subsidy of 50% or a minimum pre-tax benefit program equal to the
full price of a transit pass. The City should require subsidies or benefits that, at a minimum,
meet City of Santa Monica standards.
Response: As documented in the DSEIR, Alternative Supplemental Mitigation
Measure TR-2 requires the developer to develop a TDM Plan as part of the project
approvals. This TDM Plan will outline the details that are requested by the
commentator. At the minimum the project would implement a BART subsidy program
that would provide BART tickets at no cost or a subsidized rate to all employees.
The exact amount of the subsidy is not set in the mitigation, but “at no cost” would be
a full subsidy. The exact requirements under the Mitigation Measure will be
determined at the time of the City approval of the overall TDM Plan when the
relationship between the BART subsidy and other components of the Plan will be
evaluated. This is not an improper deferral of mitigation. Mitigation Measure TR-2
requires the preparation of a transportation demand management (TDM) plan to
encompass both commercial and residential uses which contains certain types of
specified and detailed types of programs. The fact that the City will approve the
exact requirements of the Plan before the issuance of any building permit is not
improper deferral under CEQA. The proposed Conditions of Approval for the project
require the Developer/Applicant to provide a minimum monthly Clipper card/transit
pass subsidy for each residential unit.
Comment 3.1.27: Page 6 of the DSEIR notes that Impact TR-3, impacts to the Dublin
Boulevard and Hacienda Drive intersection, would be less-than-significant. Page 79 of the
DSEIR notes that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The finding that Traffic Impact
TR-3 would be less-than-significant after mitigation is not supported by substantial evidence.
In addition, the DSEIR should be revised to evaluate potential mitigation measures to
address pedestrian and bike safety to support the conclusion that changes in turn lanes and
signal phasing would not be feasible. The DSEIR should evaluate the feasibility of
pedestrian overpasses and driveway safety warnings or safer driveway existing designs.
Response: The Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-3
contained on page 6 of the DSEIR has a typographical error which is inconsistent
with the text of the DSEIR with the actual analysis on pages 78-79. Impact TR-3
identifies the short-term cumulative impacts at the Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda
Drive intersection during the PM peak period. As noted on pages 78 and 79 of the
DSEIR, roadway improvements (as outlined in Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-TR-3) required to mitigate this impact to less than significant are infeasible since
the improvements would require the removal or modification of an existing curb
extension on the southeast corner of this intersection and relocation of an existing
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 37
City of Dublin August 2014
bike lane to accommodate an additional vehicle lane. Construction of the new travel
lane would increase the crossing distance for pedestrians wishing to cross this street
and impact bicycle use of Dublin Boulevard. Since the proposed traffic improvements
are infeasible, the DSEIR requires the development of a TDM program as required
under Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2 to reduce this impact.
However, since the reductions in vehicle trips from the TDM measures are difficult to
determine with certainty, the DSEIR finds that Impact TR-3 will be significant and
unavoidable.
The commenter is also directed to the Clarifications and Modifications section to this
Final SEIR regarding correction of the document.
Comment 3.1.28: The supplemental mitigation for Impact TR-5 is speculative and
unenforceable and does not support the conclusion that Impact TR-5 will be mitigated to a
less-than significant level. The Supplemental Mitigation measure requires the Green project
developer to assist in funding the construction of a grade separated crossing of Scarlett
Drive at Dublin Boulevard as identified in the Dublin Crossings EIR. The commenter notes
that the proposed grade separated structure has not received environmental clearances nor
has engineering right-of-way studies been completed to assure success of this
supplemental mitigation measure. When success of a mitigation measure cannot be
guaranteed, an agency cannot reasonably determine that significant effects will not occur.
Therefore, the City lacks sufficient evidence to support the DSEIR conclusion.
Response: The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that Supplemental Mitigation
Measure TR-5 lacks certainty and will not mitigate the Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett
Drive intersection to a less-than-significant level in the long-term, cumulative
condition. Proposed construction of the grade separation structure is located on City
right-of-way and funding will be provided by development impact fees and other
sources. Environmental review of the project has not yet been completed, but will be
finalized by the City of Dublin prior to when it will be needed for pedestrian and
bicycle use under the long-term cumulative condition. There is no need to have final
designs and environmental review completed at this early stage of the project. With
the construction of the grade separation structure as planned, the impact will be less
than significant.
However, in the event the grade separation is not constructed by 2035, the DSEIR
also includes an alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of
the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection. The removal of the crosswalk
will also result in a less than significant impact. The Project is required to make a fair
share contribution to the construction of this improvement.
Comment 3.1.29: The DSEIR concludes that no feasible mitigation is available for Impacts
TR-10, TR-11, TR-12, TR-13, TR-14, TR-15, TR-16 and TR-17. This conclusion is in conflict
with the identification of the preparation of a TDM Plan as a feasible mitigation measure.
Such a plan that promotes ridesharing, van pools, public transportation use, bicycle use can
reduce the projects generation of traffic and the project’s contribution to these traffic
impacts. A transportation management plan must be more specific than set forth in the
Alternative Supplemental Mitigation Measure and include an enforceable minimum subsidy
and enforcement mechanism to identify and assess compliance and effectiveness. In
addition, the DSEIR should be revised to evaluate potential measures to address pedestrian
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 38
City of Dublin August 2014
and bicycle concerns that led the DSEIR to determine that changes in turn lanes and signal
phasing changes will not be feasible. The DSEIR should evaluate the potential for
pedestrian overpasses or other additional pedestrian safety designs that could make
rejected traffic mitigation measures feasible.
Response: The DSEIR concludes that a TDM Plan, as outlined in Alternative
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2, is a feasible mitigation and will reduce
the impacts of all the supplemental impacts referenced by the commenter. Mitigation
Measure SM-TR-2 sets forth with specificity that types of measures that will be part
of the program and will be required as a condition of approval for the Project.
However, since the exact amount of the trip reductions from the TDM program are
difficult to determine with certainty at this time, the DSEIR concludes that the traffic
impacts TR-10, TR-11, TR-12, TR-13, TR-14, TR-15, TR-16 and TR-17 will be
significant and unavoidable.
The DSEIR did not evaluate the potential to construct above- or below-grade
crossings at other impacted intersections due to the fact that none of these other
intersections include a regional trail that is considered a significant pedestrian/bicycle
route along a well-travelled commute and recreational corridor.
Comment 3.1.30: The DSEIR fails to describe the project in sufficient detail to meaningful
evaluate project impacts to bicycle and improperly defers mitigation for potential impacts to
bicyclists. The City’s Bikeway Master Plan identifies bike lanes along Arnold Road and other
roads immediately adjacent to the site. The DSEIR states that no detailed plans have been
submitted to the City to determine if adequate sight distance will be provided to allow for a
clear view of bicyclists for vehicles entering or exiting the project site. Nor is sufficient data
available to review whether sufficient bicycle parking will be provided. Accordingly, the
DSEIR assumes project imparts to these topics to be significant. The failure of a sufficient
project description is a violation of CEQA and does not allow all impacts to be fully
evaluated or appropriate mitigation measures to be developed. In addition, mitigation
provided in the DSEIR is improperly deferred and lacks performance standards. The
document fails to disclose what City guidelines, policies and standard are applicable and
provides no evidence that compliance with standards will reduce future impacts to a less-
than-significant level. The DSEIR also fails to describe the project in sufficient detail to allow
meaningful evaluation of impacts to pedestrians. Similar to lack of detail regarding bicycle
impacts, lack of detail does not allow a full analysis of pedestrian impacts, improperly defers
mitigation and lacks performance standards.
Response: Staff has analyzed architectural, site, and civil plans that comprise the
Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map application for the
proposed project. Through Staff’s review of these application materials, Staff has
ensured that bicycle and pedestrian access is enhanced both inside the project and
on the public streets in the project vicinity. With the more detailed plans available,
Staff is able to make the determination that adequate sight distance is being
provided to allow for a clear view of bicyclists for vehicles entering or exiting the
project site. Staff has also reviewed the plans to determine that sufficient bicycle
parking is being provided. The pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that has
been reviewed will be further refined at the time Staff reviews the off-site
improvement plans, and special attention will be paid to maintain safety and access
for alternate modes of transportation at all intersections. Based on the plans
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 39
City of Dublin August 2014
submitted by Applicant at this time, the Project complies with City Plans relating to
pedestrians and bicycles (including Bikeway Master Plan, Complete Streets, and all
other applicable City plans on this issue). However, Supplemental Mitigation
Measures SM-TR-18 and -19 require final review for compliance based on final plans
at the time of sitework permits.
Regarding the portion of the comment regarding applicable “guidelines, policies and
standards” Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-TR-18 and -19 are hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent
with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans, which
have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, policies and
standards, including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community
Design & Sustainability Element, Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and
the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and approval by the City.”
Pedestrian and bicycle requirements contained in the above City requirements are
based on city-wide experience in the development of the Eastern Dublin Planning
area and have proven successful in ensuring that pedestrian and bicycle facilities will
be constructed to reduce pedestrian and pedestrian impacts to a less-than-significant
level. The requirement in a mitigation measure to comply with specific standards is
not improper deferral under CEQA.
Comment 3.1.31: The DSEIR finds that significant and unavoidable greenhouse gasses
would be emitted by the project. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be identified and
imposed before a finding of significant and unavoidable impacts can be made. For this
project, the requirement that the project exceed 2008 Title 24 energy efficiently
requirements by 20% is inadequate because the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency
requirements now in effect exceed the 2008 Title 24 standards by approximately 25%. The
commenter cites that Title 24 CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 call for exceeding 2013 Title 24
energy standard by 15 to 30%. Because these are currently regulatory requirements, they
are presumed feasible. Based on this information, the DSEIR must be revised to require the
project to exceed the 2013 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by 30% or as much as
determined feasible by the City based on evidence submitted in the record.
Response: The Project will be required to comply with the California State Energy
Efficiency (Title 24) standards in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. At
the time of publication of this Final SEIR, the 2013 Title 24 standards are currently in
effect. For details on these requirements, please refer to the State’s website:
www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/index.htm.
In addition to required compliance with the Title 24 standards in effect at the time of
permit issuance, the Project will also be required to be in compliance with the 2013
California Green Building Standards Code (‘CalGreen’), which was adopted by the
City. Dublin’s Chief Building Official enforces the mandatory measures of CalGreen,
but did not adopt Tiers 1 or 2. Dublin also enforces Chapter 7.94 of the Municipal
Code, which is the City’s Green Building Ordinance. The goal of the ordinance is to
increase energy efficiency and it applies to the planning, design, operation,
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 40
City of Dublin August 2014
construction, use and occupancy of every newly constructed building or structure in
the City, including residential developments over 20 units.
The Project will also be required to comply with all other applicable regulatory
requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as noted in the Draft SEIR.
Please refer to the Draft SEIR, beginning on page 186, for a summary of the
greenhouse gas reduction strategies and requirements that will be imposed on the
Project by the City’s Climate Action Plan.
In addition to the above requirements, the Applicant/Developer has identified
additional measures to reduce the construction-related greenhouse gas emissions of
the Project during it multi-year construction timeframe. The list of measures,
developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and
included as Attachment 6 to this Final SEIR, are considered best management
practices providing options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from construction
projects. By including this list of measures in the Final SEIR, the Applicant is
required to implement them and SM-AQ-4 is modified to include a reference to the
measures.
The City’s greenhouse gas emissions consultant reviewed the request of the
commenter to determine if supplemental mitigation for the project were to have
required a 30% in excess of 2013 Title 24 energy standards will reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to a less-than-significant level. The City’s consultant determined such
an increase would not change the significant and unavoidable impact conclusion in
the DSEIR , due to the fact that mitigated mobile emissions alone (not including
energy usage) are enough to result in a significant and unavoidable impact
(Illingworth & Rodkin, July 2014).
Since the DSEIR finds that the Project’s impacts due to GHG emissions is significant
and unavoidable, at the time of Project approval, the City Council will need to make
findings on the feasibility of any proposed additional mitigation measures to reduce
GHG emissions.
Comment 3.1.32: CEQA requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when significant new
information is added to an EIR following public review but before certification. The
commenter notes that the project will have numerous impacts that are different and more
severe than described in the EIR, including groundwater impacts, soil impacts, biological
resource impacts and traffic impacts. The DSEIR lacks adequate mitigation for the
potentially significant impacts previously mentioned and a revised and recirculated EIR is
required.
Response: The commenter is incorrect in the assertion that new or more severe
impacts would occur with the projects than have been analyzed in the DESIR. See
the previous responses noting that no new or more severe significant impacts would
occur with respect to groundwater resource, hazards and contamination, biological
resources and traffic. The City therefore believes that the standards for recirculation
are not met. In addition, the limited clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR
contained in the Final SEIR do not meet the standards for recirculation. The
changes in the Final SEIR clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to an
adequate DSEIR in compliance with CEQA standards.
Final Supplemental EIR: The Green Mixed Use Project Page 41
City of Dublin August 2014
Comment 3.1.33: commenter thanks the City of Dublin for an opportunity to provide
comments. The City is urged to ensure that project impacts are fully disclosed, evaluated
and mitigated before the project is allowed to proceed.
Response: This comment is noted. The City believes that the DSEIR, with the minor
modifications and clarifications in the Final SEIR, is legally adequate, fully discloses
all project supplemental impacts, evaluates those impacts and, to the extent feasible,
provides legally adequate supplemental mitigation measures, all in compliance with
CEQA standards.
Attachment 1:
Annotated Comment Letters
Attachment 2:
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures)
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 1
Table 1.1 Summary of Mitigation Measures
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
TR-1 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road (#8) intersection would
degrade from LOS D to LOS E with
the addition of project trips during
the AM peak hour under Existing
conditions.
SM-TR-1. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of
service to within acceptable standard:
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long
taper area;
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane;
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
TR-2 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
proposed project during the PM
peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions and
implementation of the proposed
project would add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential
projects with 50 or more employees to participate in the Transportation
Systems Management (TSM) program. As an alternative mitigation
measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand management
(TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of
the project. The project developer shall work with the City to develop the
key elements of the TDM plan, which shall be approved by the City prior to
the issuance of the first building permit. The TDM plan should include, but
not be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program
developed for the project including program development, information
distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all
employees and residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride
Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE),
BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to
all employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The
Village” property to the north and/or other developments in the East
Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car
spaces or a number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle rack
requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for
membership of a minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 2
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
tickets at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under
Section 132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees
up to $245 per month for qualified transit, vanpool or parking costs. Or,
an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full information
is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of
off-street parking requirements.
The following measures would be required to improve the level of service
to within acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the
eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding 300-foot long receiving lane on the east leg
with a 360-foot long merging taper area;
c) Provide an overlap signal phasing for the westbound right-turn
movement and prohibit conflicting southbound U-turn movement; and
d) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Alternative Mitigation Measure SM-TR-2. Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-3 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS
E with the addition of project trips
during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-3. Implement SM-TR-2. The following measures would be
required to improve the level of service to within an acceptable standard:
a) Convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the
eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard;
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-
foot long taper area; and
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-4 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Tassajara Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
proposed project during the PM
peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions and
implementation of the proposed
project would add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
SM-TR-4. The following measures would be required to improve the level
of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three
through lanes and two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on
Dublin Boulevard; and
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends
from Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street.
Less-than-Significant
TR-5 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection would
operate at LOS E without the
SM-TR-5. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, there
is a significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the
Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 3
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
proposed project during the AM peak
hour under Long-Term Cumulative
conditions and the proposed project
would further degrade the operations
to LOS F and add 50 or more trips to
the intersection.
recommended measure to mitigate the impacts at the intersection of
Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to the high rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade separated
crossing. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-
grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more
green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard. Although
the Dublin Crossings project has not been environmentally cleared, nor has
engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the
feasibility of this improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project
to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The
City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at this location in its
update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the
separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared, and to ensure
that the impacts are adequately mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is
required to provide a fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of
removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
TR-6 Traffic. The Dublin Boulevard and
Arnold Road (#8) intersection would
degrade from LOS D to LOS E with
the addition of project trips during the
AM peak hour under Long-Term
Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-6. The following measures would be required to improve the level
of service to within acceptable standard:
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/ permitted
overlap phase for the southbound right-turn movement and prohibit
conflicting eastbound U-turn movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Less-than-Significant
TR-7 Traffic. The southbound left-turn
queue at the Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road intersection would
exceed turn pocket capacity without
the proposed project during the PM
peak hour and the proposed project
would lengthen the queue by 25 feet
or more under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-7. Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the
95th percentile queue length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during
the PM peak hour. While the queue length would still exceed the turn
pocket storage, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25
feet.
Less-than-Significant
TR-8 Traffic. The westbound left-turn
queue at the Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection
would exceed turn pocket capacity
without the proposed project during
the AM peak hour and
implementation of the proposed
project would lengthen the queue by
SM-TR-8. The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide
additional green time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the
green time for the eastbound through movement. This will reduce the
queue length to 420 feet in the AM peak hour and 270 feet in the PM peak
hour. While the queue lengths would still exceed turn pocket capacity, the
project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet in the AM peak
hour and would cause the queue to extend beyond the turn pocket by less
than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 4
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
25 feet or more under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions. Further,
during the PM peak, the project
would cause the queue to extend
beyond the turn pocket by 25 feet
when it would be contained under No
Project scenario.
TR-9 Traffic. The southbound left-turn
queue at the Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road intersection would
exceed turn pocket capacity without
the proposed project during the PM
peak hour and implementation of the
proposed project would lengthen the
queue by 25 feet or more under
Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
SM-TR-9. The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to
provide additional green time for the southbound left-turn movement. This
will reduce the queue length by 12 feet to 845 feet and to within acceptable
threshold. Also, because the impact is caused by cumulative land use
growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share
contribution toward this improvement. The fair share contribution shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Less-than-Significant
TR-10 Traffic. The project would cause the
Dublin Boulevard segment between
Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to
degrade from LOS D to LOS E during
the AM peak hour under Existing
conditions. The project would only
add 30 trips to this segment.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-11 Traffic. The project would cause the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
of Dublin Boulevard to Central
Parkway to degrade from LOS D to
LOS E. Project traffic would also
cause the volume to capacity ratio of
the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment between I-580 westbound
ramp to Hacienda Crossings to
increase by 0.071.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-12 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment
between DeMarcus Boulevard and
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 5
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
Iron Horse Parkway to increase by
0.03 where it would operate at LOS E
in the PM peak hour under Short-
Term Cumulative No Project
scenario.
TR-13 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard
segment between Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road to increase by 0.027
where it would operate at LOS E in
the AM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-14 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by
0.045 where it would operate at LOS
E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071
where it would operate at LOS F in
the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-15 Traffic. The project would cause the
northbound Tassajara Road segment
between Dublin Boulevard and
Central Parkway to degrade from
LOS D to LOS E during the PM peak
hour under Short-Term Cumulative
conditions. While the project would
only add 4 trips to this segment, this
impact is considered to be significant.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-16 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratios along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 6
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
segments between Iron Horse
Parkway and Camp Parks where it
would operate at LOS E and between
Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where
it would operate at LOS F in the AM
peak hour under Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario to
increase by 0.023.
TR-17 Traffic. The project would cause the
volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by
0.02 during the PM peak hour where
it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project
scenario.
Implement SM-TR-2. No feasible mitigation available
Significant and
Unavoidable
TR-18 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted bicycle plans, guidelines,
policies or standards.
SM-TR-18. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City guidelines,
polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the
issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are
consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable
City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City
of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master
Plan, for review and approval by the City.
Less-than-Significant
TR-19 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted policies, plans or program
supporting pedestrians.
SM-TR-19. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with applicable City guidelines,
polices and standards for review and approval by the City. Prior to the
issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared final
Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are
consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map plans, which have been determined to be consistent with applicable
City guidelines, policies and standards, including but not limited to the City
of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 7
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
Plan, for review and approval by the City.
TR-20 Traffic. The project could conflict with
adopted policies, plans or program
supporting pedestrians, including the
City’s Complete Streets policies.
SM-TR-20. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall
submit design plans that are consistent with the City’s Complete Street
Policy and design standards for review and approval by the City.
Less-than-Significant
TR-21 Traffic. The project could include
design features that would not be
consistent with the City’s engineering
design standards or standards
published by the ITE or Caltrans.
SM-TR-21. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the project
developer shall submit design plans that are consistent with the City’s
Complete Street Policy for review and approval by the City. All designs
shall conform to City standards.
Less-than-Significant
TR-22 Traffic. Project construction activities
such as the import of the fill material
and delivery of materials could result
in impacts to vehicle, bicycle and
pedestrian access in and around the
project area.
SM-TR-22. Before issuance of grading permits for the project, the project
developer shall prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be
subject to review and approval by the City of Dublin, LAVTA, and local
emergency service providers, including the City of Dublin Fire Prevention
Bureau and the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The plan shall
ensure maintenance of acceptable operating conditions on local roadways
and transit routes. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) Limitations on the size and type of trucks; provision of a staging area
with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular,
pedestrian, and bicycle movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum
distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off
areas)
f) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street
closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Less-than-Significant
Park-1 Community Services & Facilities.
Build-out of the proposed project
would require the dedication of 5
acres of local parkland on the project
site. The proposed project provides
no public park space.
SM-Park-1. Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the
project, the project developer(s) shall satisfy the requirement to provide
parkland through the payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin prior to
issuance of building permits. As part of the first final subdivision map for
the project, the project developer(s) shall dedicate a minimum 2-acre
Neighborhood Square to the City of Dublin. The size, configuration and
location of the Neighborhood Square shall be approved by the Dublin parks
and Community Services Department. Project developer(s) shall satisfy
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 8
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
remaining local park requirements by paying fees to the City of Dublin prior
to issuance of building permits.
BIO-1 Biological Resources. The
proposed project would result in the
fill of potentially jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
SM-BIO-1. The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of
a grading plan for the site:
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these
jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory
mitigation shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of
wetland habitat values or acreages. In such an eventuality, a wetland
mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes
creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to
project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas shall be established in
perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar
mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment
of an endowment for the long-term management of the site. If wetlands
are determined to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). If the potential seasonal wetlands are non-jurisdictional
under Section 404, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the RWQCB.
Less-than-Significant
BIO-2 Biological Resources. Approval and
construction of the proposed project
would impact Congdon’s tarplant and
other special-status plant species on
the site.
SM-BIO-2. Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted
on the site consistent with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s
2009 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status
Populations and natural Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted
throughout the blooming period throughout the blooming period of those
special-status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or three separate
surveys may be required to cover the blooming period of plants listed in
Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the
DSEIR) Table 4.4-1. If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided,
compensatory mitigation shall be provided, such as the acquisition of off -
site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in question, purchase
of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the
affected species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or
conservation organization (e.g.. a local land trust) for the preservation and
management of existing populations. The location of mitigation sites shall
be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish & Wildlife. In the case
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 9
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
where special-status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead
agency shall approve the mitigation approach using the guidance provided
by the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy in consultation with
the City’s consulting biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a
minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired:impacted). For off -site mitigation
options, measures shall be implemented (including contingency measures)
providing for the long-term protection of these species.
BIO-3 Biological Resources. The
proposed project could impact the
habitat for nesting or wintering
burrowing owl by disturbing the
existing ground surface.
SM-BIO-3. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls
prior to grading or construction activities. These surveys should conform to
the survey protocol established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). The Conservation Strategy depicts the project
site as being located in Conservation Zone 2, which supports 11 percent of
the Conservation Strategy’s study area’s unprotected potential habitat for
burrowing owl). Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site’s
approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non-native grassland habitat and
within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The following
measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and the California Department of Fish & Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a
qualified biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing
owls. If no owls are found during this first survey, a final survey will be
conducted within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that
burrowing owls are still absent. If ground disturbing activities are
delayed or suspended for more than 14 days after the initial take
avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including the final
survey within 48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted
in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation
shall be implemented in accordance with applicable California
Department of Fish & Wildlife standards. More specifically, if the
surveys identify breeding or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent
to the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed and shall be
provided with protective buffers. Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan (i.e., a
plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the
duration and timing of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the
owls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed activity with background
activities) shall be implemented to encourage owls to move away from
the work area prior to construction and to minimize the potential to
affect the reproductive success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 10
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
be subject to California Fish & Wildlife approval and monitoring
requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required by
California Fish & Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan.
Mitigation may include the permanent protection of habitat at a nearby
off-site location acceptable to the California Department of Fish &
Wildlife.
BIO-4 Biological Resources. Construction
of the proposed project could impact
breeding birds on the site.
SM-BIO-4. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (impacts to
breeding birds). Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on
the site shall occur during the non-breeding season from September 1 to
January 31. If instead these actions will occur from February 1 to August
31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted no
more than 14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests
found shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer
size may vary depending on bird species, the location of the nest, and
other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-status
species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a
100-foot buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major
disturbances. In the case of special-status species, the size of buffers and
other measures would be implemented based on any applicable CDFW
guidance and standards.
Less-than-Significant
BIO-5 Biological Resources. Construction
of the proposed project could impact
special-status bats that could inhabit
the site, specifically the removal of
the existing building.
SM-BIO-5. The marketing building shall be removed from the premises
during September or October. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing
building for bats shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If
bats are found, a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation
plan consistent with US Fish & Wildlife, California Department of Fish &
Wildlife and EACCS standards and policies.
Less-than-Significant
NOISE-
1
Noise. Residential land uses
proposed by the project could be
exposed to exterior noise levels
exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and interior
noise levels exceeding 45 dBA
CNEL.
SM-NOISE-1. Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive
areas of the project to meet City standards. To meet City noise standards,
the following mitigation shall be used:
Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580.
Ensure that all residents have access to outdoor use areas that
achieve exterior noise criteria (60 dBA CNEL for residential uses).
A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by
the local building official, shall be provided for units throughout the site,
so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to
control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be
designed to have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations
facing the freeway.
For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 11
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated
windows and doors shall be provided to maintain interior noise levels at
acceptable levels. Additional treatments may include, but are not
limited to, sound rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, insulation,
acoustical vents, etc. Large windows and doors should be oriented
away from the I-580 where possible. Bedrooms should be located
away from I-580.
The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the
project to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels on site achieve
the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses and
hourly average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for commercial uses.
Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary
interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the
City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior
to issuance of a building permit.
The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be
reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that
operational noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA CNEL at exterior
project residential uses and would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside
these residences. If needed, the final design and location of
mechanical equipment shall be modified to conform with noise
parameters set forth in this analysis.
A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial
portion of the project site, which would include the proposed hours of
allowable deliveries and the locations and routes of the delivery trucks
on the project site. A qualified acoustical consultant shall review the
delivery plan to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels on site
achieve acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan and acoustical
consultant report shall be subject to approval by the City prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial building.
Air
Quality
Air Quality. Dust Control Measures. SM-AQ -1. The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control
measures, which shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation
Measure 3.11/1.0:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,
graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times
per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site
shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 12
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per
day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when
not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as
required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
AQ-1 Air Quality. The project would result
in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants for
which the project region is non-
attainment under applicable Federal
or State ambient air quality standards
due to emissions of NOX.
SM-AQ -2. The project applicant shall reduce future residential and
employee trips through a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program
approved by the City and including, but not limited to, the following
measures:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program
developed for the project including program development, information
distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all
employees and residents regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride
Home Program, Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE),
BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all
employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with “The Village”
property to the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin
area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least two other commute
alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute
alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 13
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
spaces or a number approved by the City beyond the City’s bicycle
rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a “Biz Prime” member and pay for membership
of a minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets
at no cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under
Section 132(F) of federal tax code, an employer can offer its
employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit, vanpool or
parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling
costs. Full information is available at:
http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-
street parking requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to
reduce evaporative ROG emissions.
AQ-2 Air Quality. The project would result
in a violation of regional air quality
standard and would contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
See Implement SM-AQ-2 Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-3 Air Quality. The project would
conflict with the regional Clean Air
Plan.
See Implement SM-AQ-2 Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-4 Air Quality. The project would
expose sensitive receptors to excess
cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations
that are above health-based
thresholds.
SM-AQ -3. The project shall include the following measures to minimize
long-term toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure for new residences:
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of
occupancy prior to 1/1/2017.
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. The site layout shall locate
windows and air intakes as far as possible from I-580 traffic lanes. Any
modifications to the site design shall incorporate buffers between
residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible, plant vegetation along the project site
boundary with I-580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a
dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 14
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
predicted cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5
concentrations above 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3) as
shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air filtration device shall be as set
forth in subsection e below.. To ensure adequate health protection to
sensitive receptors, a ventilation system shall meet the following
minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City and
County of San Francisco, 2008):
At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the
ventilation system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially
or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per
one million or greater but less than or equal to 22 per one million
as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially
or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is greater
than 22 per one million and less than 50 per one million as shown
in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed, inoperable windows and no
balconies on building elevations facing I-580 freeway (MERV 16
Plus) shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is a greater
than or equal to 50 per one million and less than 62.5 per one
million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater,
residential units shall not be built unless the developer includes
specific mitigation measures that are approved by a qualified air
quality consultant and the City that results in a reduction of the
cancer risk to below 10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan
for the buildings’ heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air
filtration system shall be required. Recognizing that emissions from air
pollution sources are decreasing, the maintenance period shall last as
long as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are
predicted. Subsequent studies may be conducted by an air quality
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 15
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing need for the filtered
ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1)
require cleaning, maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings
for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance that new owners and tenants
are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include
provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the
building include funds for cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and
replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid
significant excess cancer risks and required installation of filtered
ventilation systems (described above). Note that new United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) engines standards
combined with California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules and
regulations will reduce on-road emissions of diesel particulate matter
(DPM) and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that, prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant
consultant verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce
toxic air contaminant (TAC) exposure as set forth in this mitigation
measure.
AQ-5 Air Quality. The project would
generate greenhouse gas emissions,
both directly and indirectly, that would
have a significant impact on the
environment and would conflict with
an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.
SM-AQ -4. The final design of the project shall include all requirements of
the City Climate Action Plan, including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking
Requirements), A.1.5 (Streetscape Master Plan), A.1.8 (General Plan
Community Design and Sustainability Element), A.1.9 (Work with LAVTA to
Improve Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance), A.2.5 (LED Streetlight
Specifications), A.3.1 (Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance),
A.3.6 (Commercial Recycling). In addition, the project proponent is
encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate Action Plan
polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5
(Commercial Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs
such as policies A.3.7 (Multi-Family Recycling), A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling),
and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection). Implementation of these
mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below the
significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use
reduction goal of at least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be
developed by the project applicant that may include measures such as the
installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks, low-flush toilets,
and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall
implement a solid waste recycling program through recycling and
Significant and
Unavoidable
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 16
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
composting strategies, which results in a project-wide solid waste diversion
rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project shall exceed 2008 Title 24
Building Standards (which CalEEMod is based on) by at least 20 percent in
terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the supplemental
list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to the
Final SEIR.
HAZ-1 Hazards. The site has been
remediated for commercial and other
non-residential land uses. As a part
of the site management terms that
were approved when the remediation
occurred in 2010, the Alameda
County Department of Environmental
Health (ACDEH) required that if any
residential or other similar land use is
proposed at the Property, the ACDEH
must be notified. ACDEH will then re-
evaluate the case upon receipt of
approved development/construction
plans.
SM-HAZ-1. The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed
project and the intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can
re-evaluate the case. If directed by ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or
site health risk assessment shall be completed for portions of the site
anticipated for residential development and excavation prior to issuance of
a grading and/or site improvement permit. The site investigation shall be
coordinated with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health.
The investigation plan shall include a description of the work to be
performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and requirements
for quality control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation
plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACDEH. Grading or
excavation of any identified contaminated residential area on the site shall
not occur until ACDEH issues a closure letter authorizing residential uses
on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with
documentation that the above actions have taken place. To protect the
health and safety of construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements shall be prepared and implemented if additional remediation
is required.
Less-than-Significant
HAZ-2 Hazards. If required, construction
dewatering activities could release
identified accumulations of residual
hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment,
possibly exposing construction
workers, and surrounding residents
and visitors during construction.
SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary, a construction
dewatering plan shall be prepared and submitted with a dewatering permit
application. Reuse of groundwater as an on-site dust palliative or for soil
compaction is acceptable if requisite testing and comparison to CAL-EPA
screening thresholds indicate that the groundwater is suitable for reuse. If
reuse is not possible, contaminated water shall be safely removed to an
approved site. Groundwater removed during construction dewatering shall
be treated to the extent required by the permit agency prior to discharge
and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or
other agency with jurisdiction, if the water is to be discharged into a storm
or sanitary sewer system.
Less-than-Significant
HAZ-3 Hazards. Demolition activities could
release significant quantities of lead
based paint and asbestos containing
SM-HAZ-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site
building, testing shall be performed by a qualified and licensed
environmental professional to determine the present of significant
Less-than-Significant
Table 1.1 (Summary of Mitigation Measures): The Green Mixed Use Project
City of Dublin August 2014
Page 17
Impact Topic/Supplemental Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Net Supplemental
Impact After Mitigation
material and other contaminants into
the environment, possibly exposing
construction workers, and
surrounding residents and visitors
during construction.
quantities of lead based paint and asbestos containing material. If
detected, such material shall be removed by a qualified contractor and
disposed of in an approved disposal facility. Necessary permits shall be
obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to remediation.
Attachment 3:
Breeding Bird Survey Report, dated April 2014
April 22, 2014
David Clock
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Place Land Company LLC
c/o Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Re: Breeding Bird Survey at The Green, Dublin, California
Dear Mr. Clock:
The purpose of this letter is to report the findings of a take avoidance survey for burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia) and breeding birds within ”The Green” site (Project Area) in Dublin,
Alameda County, California. This survey was performed as a precautionary measure prior to
vegetation maintenance activities such as mowing and/or disking. The survey was performed
due to the presence of potential burrowing owl habitat onsite, including burrows and debris
piles, and the presence of other bird nesting habitat including tall grasses, shrubs, or bare rocky
ground.
Project Area Description
The Project Area is approximately 27.5 acres and bordered by city streets and highways on all
sides, Martinelli Way to the north, Hacienda Drive to the east, Arnold Drive to the west, and
Interstate 580 to the south. The Project Area is a mostly-undeveloped land parcel characterized
by disturbed soil, grasses, and weeds. A single small building is located near the northern edge
of the property, and this is the only building on the property. Past grading activity moved soil
from some portions of the site to piles in other areas, resulting in some areas of relatively flat
ground and other areas with mounds, depressions, or low man-made plateaus.
Vegetation within the Project Area consists primarily of ruderal, non-native grasses and
herbaceous species dominated by wild oats (Avena spp.), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and
common mustard (Brassica nigra) with scattered coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) in the north-
central area. A small portion of the northern Project Area was recently mowed, and other areas
appear to have occasional mowing and vegetation maintenance.
Methods
A breeding bird survey, including a burrowing owl take avoidance survey, was conducted on
April 22, 2014 by WRA wildlife biologist Patricia Valcarcel. Specifically, the survey covered all
portions of the Project Area and within 250 feet of the Project Area for raptor species. The
survey was conducted in the dawn and morning hours and was deemed adequate to effectively
cover the surveyed area. The Project Area was traversed on foot in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation 1. Burrows, pipes, and other burrow surrogates were
inspected for evidence of burrowing owl occupancy (feathers, whitewash, pellets, prey remains).
In addition, the site was investigated for any evidence of avian territorial behavior (e.g., singing,
chasing intruders out of territories, etc.), breeding bird behavior (e.g., adult birds carrying
nesting material or food), or the presence of active nests and/or pre-fledged juvenile birds.
Observations were made with binoculars and the naked eye.
Results
No burrowing owl were observed within the Project Area, nor was any evidence of burrowing
owl observed within the Project Area. One active loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) nest
was observed in a coyote bush along the northern fence of the Project Area, located near the
Martinelli Way gate (Attachment 1). The female was observed incubating the nest and the male
was foraging in the area. Loggerhead shrike are a California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Species of Special Concern. A typical buffer surrounding the nest of a special-status passerine
species such as loggerhead shrike is 100 feet. Attachment 1 shows the nest location with a
buffer of 100 feet. All other bird activity was limited to foraging by species commonly observed
in urban and ruderal areas, and no other nesting activity was observed.
Summary
One active loggerhead shrike nest was observed within the surveyed area along the northern
fence line of the Project Area. It is recommended that no work be performed within 100 feet of
the nest (as shown on Attachment 1) until after August 31, 2014, or until it can be shown that all
fledgling birds have vacated the nest and/or the nest has been abandoned. Per common
breeding bird survey standards, the results of this survey are valid for 14 days from the survey
date. If mowing or disking activities have not been initiated within 14 days (i.e., by May 5,
2014), a follow-up pre-construction survey is recommended to determine if any nesting has
been initiated in the interim.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Patricia Valcarcel
Wildlife Biologist
Attachment: Nest Location and Buffer Area Map
1 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California
Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.
2
f
e
e
t
me
t
e
r
s
10
0
0
400
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
.
L
o
g
g
e
r
h
e
a
d
s
h
r
i
k
e
n
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
r
e
d
)
an
d
a
10
0
-
f
o
o
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
(
y
e
l
l
o
w
)
w
i
t
h
i
n
"T
h
e
Gr
e
e
n
" P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
.
Attachment 4:
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health
letter, dated June 2014
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 250
Alameda, CA 94502-6577
(510) 567-6700
FAX (510) 337-9335
June 11, 2014
Mr. Mike Parker (Sent via E-mail to: mparker@quattrorealty.com)
Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Stephen Pilch
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Land Co., LLC
4 Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
Subject: Work Plan Review for SLIC Case No. RO0003131 and GeoTracker Global ID T10000005547,
The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Parker and Mr. Pilch:
Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) has reviewed the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and
Cleanup (SLIC) case for the above referenced site including the document entitled, “Addendum to
Workplan for Further Investigation,” dated May 28, 2014 (Work Plan Addendum). The Work Plan
Addendum, which was prepared in response to technical comments in ACEH correspondence dated May
7, 2014, is an addendum to a document entitled, ““Workplan for Further Investigation,” dated April 23,
2014 (Work Plan).
The proposed scope of work as modified in the Work Plan Addendum is conditionally approved and may
be implemented provided that the technical comment below is addressed and incorporated during the
proposed investigation. Submittal of a revised Work Plan is not required unless an alternate scope of
work outside that described in the Work Plan Addendum and technical comment below is proposed. We
request that you address the following technical comment, perform the proposed work, and send us the
reports described below.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Stockpile Soil Analysis. In addition to the proposed laboratory analyses for stockpile soil samples
described in the Work Plan Addendum, we request that the stockpile soil samples also be analyzed
for creosote and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using EPA Method 8270, asbestos using
polarized light microscopy, and PCBs using EPA Method 8082. Please present the results in the
Site Investigation Report requested below for ACEH approval prior to reuse of the stockpiles on
site.
ALAMEDA COUNTY
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
AGENCY
ALEX BRISCOE, Director
Stockbridge/BHV Emerald Land Co., LLC
RO0003131
June 11, 2014
Page 2
TECHNICAL REPORT REQUEST
Please upload technical reports to the ACEH ftp site (Attention: Jerry Wickham), and to the State Water
Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker website according to the following schedule and file-naming
convention:
October 10, 2014 – Site Investigation Report
File to be named: SWI_R_yyyy-mm-dd RO3131
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 567-6791 or send me an electronic mail message at
jerry.wickham@acgov.org. Case files can be reviewed online at the following website:
http://www.acgov.org/aceh/index.htm.
Sincerely,
Jerry Wickham, California PG 3766, CEG 1177, and CHG 297
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Attachment: Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
Enclosure: ACEH Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
cc: Greg Stahl, Ground Zero Analysis, Inc., 1172 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, CA 95351 (Sent via E-mail
to: gstahl@groundzeroanalysis.com)
Ryan Batty, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA (Sent via E-mail
to: rbatty@dtsc.ca.gov)
Jerry Wickham, ACEH (Sent via E-mail to: jerry.wickham@acgov.org)
GeoTracker, eFile
Attachment 1
Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements / Obligations
REPORT REQUESTS
These reports are being requested pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25296.10. 23 CCR
Sections 2652 through 2654, and 2721 through 2728 outline the responsibilities of a responsible party in response
to an unauthorized release from a petroleum UST system, and require your compliance with this request.
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS
ACEH’s Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (LOP and SLIC) require submission of reports in electronic
form. The electronic copy replaces paper copies and is expected to be used for all public information requests,
regulatory review, and compliance/enforcement activities. Instructions for submission of electronic documents to
the Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Program FTP site are provided on the attached “Electronic
Report Upload Instructions.” Submission of reports to the Alameda County FTP site is an addition to existing
requirements for electronic submittal of information to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
GeoTracker website. In September 2004, the SWRCB adopted regulations that require electronic submittal of
information for all groundwater cleanup programs. For several years, responsible parties for cleanup of leaks from
underground storage tanks (USTs) have been required to submit groundwater analytical data, surveyed locations of
monitoring wells, and other data to the GeoTracker database over the Internet. Beginning July 1, 2005, these
same reporting requirements were added to Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup (SLIC) sites. Beginning July
1, 2005, electronic submittal of a complete copy of all reports for all sites is required in GeoTracker (in PDF format).
Please visit the SWRCB website for more information on these requirements
(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/).
PERJURY STATEMENT
All work plans, technical reports, or technical documents submitted to ACEH must be accompanied by a cover
letter from the responsible party that states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the information and/or recommendations contained in the attached document or report is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge." This letter must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of your company.
Please include a cover letter satisfying these requirements with all future reports and technical documents submitted
for this fuel leak case.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION & CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The California Business and Professions Code (Sections 6735, 6835, and 7835.1) requires that work plans and
technical or implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments be performed
under the direction of an appropriately registered or certified professional. For your submittal to be considered a
valid technical report, you are to present site specific data, data interpretations, and recommendations prepared by
an appropriately licensed professional and include the professional registration stamp, signature, and statement of
professional certification. Please ensure all that all technical reports submitted for this fuel leak case meet this
requirement.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND
Please note that delays in investigation, later reports, or enforcement actions may result in your becoming ineligible
to receive grant money from the state’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Senate Bill 2004) to reimburse
you for the cost of cleanup.
AGENCY OVERSIGHT
If it appears as though significant delays are occurring or reports are not submitted as requested, we will consider
referring your case to the Regional Board or other appropriate agency, including the County District Attorney, for
possible enforcement actions. California Health and Safety Code, Section 25299.76 authorizes enforcement
including administrative action or monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each day of violation.
Alameda County Environmental Cleanup
Oversight Programs
(LOP and SLIC)
REVISION DATE: May 15, 2014
ISSUE DATE: July 5, 2005
PREVIOUS REVISIONS: October 31, 2005;
December 16, 2005; March 27, 2009; July 8, 2010,
July 25, 2010
SECTION: Miscellaneous Administrative Topics & Procedures SUBJECT: Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
The Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (LOP and SLIC) require submission of all reports in
electronic form to the county’s ftp site. Paper copies of reports will no longer be accepted. The electronic copy replaces the
paper copy and will be used for all public information requests, regulatory review, and compliance/enforcement activities.
REQUIREMENTS
Please do not submit reports as attachments to electronic mail.
Entire report including cover letter must be submitted to the ftp site as a single portable document format (PDF)
with no password protection.
It is preferable that reports be converted to PDF format from their original format, (e.g., Microsoft Word) rather than
scanned.
Signature pages and perjury statements must be included and have either original or electronic signature.
Do not password protect the document. Once indexed and inserted into the correct electronic case file, the
document will be secured in compliance with the County’s current security standards and a password. Documents
with password protection will not be accepted.
Each page in the PDF document should be rotated in the direction that will make it easiest to read on a computer
monitor.
Reports must be named and saved using the following naming convention:
RO#_Report Name_Year-Month-Date (e.g., RO#5555_WorkPlan_2005-06-14)
Submission Instructions
1) Obtain User Name and Password
a) Contact the Alameda County Environmental Health Department to obtain a User Name and Password to upload
files to the ftp site.
i) Send an e-mail to deh.loptoxic@acgov.org
b) In the subject line of your request, be sure to include “ftp PASSWORD REQUEST” and in the body of your
request, include the Contact Information, Site Addresses, and the Case Numbers (RO# available in
Geotracker) you will be posting for.
2) Upload Files to the ftp Site
a) Using Internet Explorer (IE4+), go to ftp://alcoftp1.acgov.org
(i) Note: Netscape, Safari, and Firefox browsers will not open the FTP site as they are NOT being
supported at this time.
b) Click on Page located on the Command bar on upper right side of window, and then scroll down to Open FTP
Site in Windows Explorer.
c) Enter your User Name and Password. (Note: Both are Case Sensitive.)
d) Open “My Computer” on your computer and navigate to the file(s) you wish to upload to the ftp site.
e) With both “My Computer” and the ftp site open in separate windows, drag and drop the file(s) from “My
Computer” to the ftp window.
3) Send E-mail Notifications to the Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs
a) Send email to deh.loptoxic@acgov.org notify us that you have placed a report on our ftp site.
b) Copy your Caseworker on the e-mail. Your Caseworker’s e-mail address is the entire first name then a period
and entire last name @acgov.org. (e.g., firstname.lastname@acgov.org)
c) The subject line of the e-mail must start with the RO# followed by Report Upload. (e.g., Subject: RO1234
Report Upload) If site is a new case without an RO#, use the street address instead.
d) If your document meets the above requirements and you follow the submission instructions, you will receive a
notification by email indicating that your document was successfully uploaded to the ftp site.
Attachment 5:
Ground Zero Report for Alameda County Department
of Environmental Health letter, dated April 2014
G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc 1172 Kansas Avenue , Suite A Modesto, CA 95351 209.522.4119 – PH 209.522.4227 - FAX groundzeroanalysis.com April 23 , 2014 Mr. Jerry Wickham Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Environmental Health Services 1131 Harbor Bay Pa rkway, Suite 250 Alameda, CA 94502 -6577 Subject: Workplan for Further Investigation The Green , 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA SLIC Case No. RO0003131 Dear Mr. Wickham : The following Workplan is submitted by Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. (Ground Zero) on behalf of Quattro Realty Group and Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC in response to your directive letter dated January 30, 2014. The location of the subject S ite is shown on Figure 1. A site plan is shown o n Figure 2 . BACKGROUND Stockbridge BHV Emerald Place Land Company, LLC (“Stockbridge”) is the owner of the 27.45 -acre property in Du blin known as “The Green”. Stockbridge is proposing mixed-use development of the property involving construction of commercial as well as medium d ensity residential structures. The City of Dublin is the lead agency preparing a Supplement Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for an amendment to the City’s General Plan allowing for the proposed development. The SEIR will contain certain mitigation measures that will require the input of the Alameda Environment al Health (“ACEH”) involving potential environmental contamination issues arising from the past use of the property.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 2 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Stockbridge requested that ACEH provide such regulatory oversight as is nece ssary to satisfy the mitigation measures of the SEIR. A meeting was held with ACEH on January 9 , 2014 to discuss the background of the S ite and the measures that would be necessary for ACEH to provide the requested services. On January 9, 2014, ACEH ope ned Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup (SLIC) Case No. RO0003131 for the Site. After reviewing background informa tion on Site investigations, ACEH issued the letter dated January 30, 2014 requesting a workplan to address specific technical question s. A copy of the ACEH letter is included in Appendix A. Property Information The subject Site is located at 5411 Martinelli Way in Dublin, California. Martinelli Way borders the Site to the north, Hacienda Drive borders the Site to the east, Interstate-580 borders the Site to the south and Arnold Road borders the Site to the west. The Site has an area of approximately 27.45 acres and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 986-033-004, 986-033-005-2 and 986-033-006. The Site is relatively flat and at an elevation of approximately 340 feet above mean sea level. The subject Site was previously occupied by a portion of the U.S. Army’s Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The subject portion of the base was closed and property ownership was transferred to Alameda County in the late 1960s. The structures on the property were demolished in the mid-1990s. The property is currently undeveloped open space, mainly covered by grasses and low weeds, with one small unoccupied structure in the north central portion of the site. Historic Site Investigations Beginning as early as 1991 and to date, numerous Phase I and Phase II investigations have been conducted on behalf of various potential developers of the Site and surrounding properties. The subject property has been referred to in several reports as “Parcel 16”. At some point prior to 2012 the portion of Parcel 16 north of Martinelli Way and south of Dublin Blvd. was severed and subsequently identified as “Parcel 16A”. Property north of Dublin Blvd, between Hacienda Drive and Arnold Road and south of Central Parkway has been referred to as “Parcel 15”. Property to the west of the Site and south of Martinelli Way has been referred to as the “Option Parcel”. These designations are shown on Figure 2.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 3 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc A detailed summary of all investigations conducted on properties surrounding the Site is beyond the scope of this report. Investigations specific to the Site are summarized below. In 1998 Erler and Kalinowsik (E&K) conducted a soil and groundwater investigation on Parcel 16 and the Option Parcel. A geophysical survey was conducted in two areas of Parcel 16 where underground fuel storage tanks were suspected based on historical military base records: the former guard house boiler room and the former underground fuel storage depot. The fuel storage depot was located on the current Site. No tanks were found. Trenching revealed buried debris, which was removed. Grab groundwater samples from the fuel depot area detected total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) at a maximum concentration of 120,000 parts per billion (ppb). Stepout borings detected low levels of TPHd in groundwater no more than 55 feet downgradient of the depot area. No benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene or xylenes (BTEX) compounds were detected. E&K collected grab groundwater samples from several borings located throughout the investigation area. Samples were analyzed for TPHd, BTEX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Other than a trace of xylenes in one boring, no VOCs were detected in samples collected from the current Parcel 16 and Parcel 16A. Some VOCs, including tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE) were detected in certain borings on the Option Parcel and along the south boundary of Parcel 15. E&K also collected soil samples along the former railroad spur that traversed Parcels 16 and 16A from northwest to southeast. Samples were collected from native soil beneath the ballast at five locations, three of which were located on the subject Site. The samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides, selected metals and total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (TEPH). Trace levels of TEPH were found in two samples; a trace of 2,4-DB was found in one sample; metals concentrations were at naturally-occurring background levels. In 2003, Levine-Fricke (LF) conducted limited soil sampling along the railroad spur. Four soil borings were advanced and sampled at locations generally similar to those sampled by E&K. The samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), for phenols and for creosote. Low levels of DDT in two of the soil samples were the only contaminants of concern detected during their investigation. Based on the results LF concluded that no further investigation was warranted in the area of the former railroad spur on the property. In 2001 Lowney and Associates and Subsurface Consultants, Inc. (SCI) investigated a former incinerator and burn pit area located along the northeast corner of the current Parcel 16. Significant analyses determined that lead was the only constituent of concern. 3,400 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil was excavated in 2001 and transported to the Waste Management Kettleman
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 4 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Hills facility for disposal. The case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in 2003 as “clean-closed with no restrictions on future development”. Additional sampling was conducted by Treadwell & Rollo in 2005 which resulted in a second closure letter in December 2005 from DTSC which concluded “… the incinerator/Burn Dump at Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Drive does not appear to pose a threat to human health or the environment under a residential land use scenario.” In September 2008 during grading activities a steel underground storage tank (UST) was discovered in the southwest corner of the Site. In October 2008 the UST was removed by ADR Environmental Group (ADR) and the soil in the vicinity of the former UST was excavated. Additional remedial over -excavation and groundwater pumping was conducted in 2009 and 2010. The results of the final confirmation soil samples were non -detect for all fuel analytes. Only a de -minimus concentration of diesel was detected in the final groundwater sample. Case closure was granted for the site in September 2010. In the ir August 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report, ENGEO concluded that the presence of VOCs in soil vapor beneath the parcel located north of the subject property constitutes a Recognized Environmental Condition . ENGEO recommended, in pertinent part, the following actions: • “A soil vapor monitoring study and a human health risk assessment should be considered at the Property to…evaluate impacts due to the upgradient VOC source …” • “…it is our experience that historical use of herbicides was co mmon on former military sites: as such, it may be prudent to consider the health risk of near -surface soil at contemplated residential development areas.” A subsurface investigation conducted by Ground Zero in October 2013 wa s intend ed to address those recommendations. A total of five (5) soil borings (HAB1 through HAB5) were advanced in a rough grid pattern across the site on October 8, 2013, by a Geologist from Ground Zero. The locations of the shallow soil borings are shown on Fig ure 3. The shallow soil borings were all advanced with a hand auger and soil samples were collected at depths of approximately 1, 2 and 3 feet below grade. All soil samples collected from the depth of one foot were analyzed for chlorinated and nitrophenol herbicides by EPA Method 8151A. No herbicides were detected in any of the 1 -foot soil samples collected. In order to investigate the potential for detectable concentrations of VOCs in soil vapor, five (5) te mporary soil vapor wells (VW -1 through VW -5) were constructed in close proximity to the hand
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 5 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc auger borings on October 15, 2013 (Figure 3). Soil vapor samples were collected and analyzed for VOC s by EPA Method TO -15 . Various VOCs were detected in the vapor samples. Several fuel -related VOCs were de tected at similar concentrations a cross the site; several solvent -related VOCs were detected at similar concentrations across the site; and acetone was detected at similar concentrations across the site. The relative uniformity of the chemicals detected a nd their concentrations suggests that these are anthropogenic background levels. The concentrations of VOCs were all well below their respective residential vapor intrusion ESL and CHHSL values. The total lifetime excess risk for carcinogenic constituen ts was calculated at 4.0E -07, an order of magnitu de below the threshold level of significance of 1E -06. Similarly, the total hazard index was calculated at 7.2E-03, several orders of magnitude below the threshold level of significance of 1E+00. Results w ere reported in the Subsurface Investigation Report dated October 25, 2013. Current Status and Summary of Concerns Based on investigations conducted by Ground Zero and others, we presented our summary and conclusions regarding potential environmental c oncerns to ACEH at the January 9, 2014 meeting: 1) 1,000-gallon LUST near southwest corner of property. This was remediated by excavation (545 yards of soil) and groundwater extraction (9,240 gallons) and the case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in September 2010 under commercial property use standards. The only residual contamination was 114 ppb TPHd in groundwater. Volatilization to indoor air would be the only potential concern and diesel is not volatile. GZA c onclusion: no further action should be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “1”. 2) Contamination associated with the former fuel depot on east side of property. Erler and Kalinowski investigated potential USTs at the former fuel depot area in 1998. No USTs were found, debris was removed from the backfilled tankpit area. Groundwater samples were collected, one of which had 120,000 ppb TPHd with no associated BTEX. Stepout borings were advanced and the downgradient borings contained TPHd up to 180 ppb with no associated BTEX. No soil samples were analyzed. E&K performed a screening level risk assessment for vapor intrusion of VOCs for the site and Alameda County issued a closure letter July 10, 1998 stating that the “primary COCs in groundwater…do not pose a significant health risk…for current or proposed uses of the subject sites”. GZA conclusion: some further investigation or evaluation may be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “2”. 3) Contamination associated with former burn pit on east side of property, intersection of Hacienda and Martinelli. A former incinerator and burn debris was associated with the military base. 3,400 cubic yards of lead-contaminated soil was excavated in 2001. Case was closed by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in 2003 as “clean-closed with no restrictions on future development”. The DTSC issued a second closure letter in December 2005 which
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 6 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc concluded “… the incinerator/Burn Dump at Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Drive does not appear to pose a threat to human health or the environment under a residential land use scenario.” GZA conclusion: no further action should be necessary. Shown on Figure 4 as area “3”. 4) Question of area-wide or limited contamination with VOC vapors. E&K in 1998 found no detectable HVOCs in groundwater. GZA found low levels in soil vapor in 2013, below residential screening levels. GZA c onclusion: no further action should be necessary. Boring locations and results are shown on Figure 4. 5) Question of herbicides in shallow soil. GZA found none in 2013. GZA conclusion: this has been adequately addressed for residential development; no further action should be necessary. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. 6) Question of herbicides, metals, OCPS, phenols, creosote and PCBs associated with former rail spur. E&K collected samples from 5 borings in 1998 which were analyzed for herbicides, metals and hydrocarbons. Trace levels of hydrocarbons were found in two samples and a single sample contained a detectable concentration of the herbicide 2,4-DB. Levine Fricke sampled 4 borings in 2003 and analyzed for the above. All were non-detect except for DDT which was detected at a maximum concentration of 60 ppb. This is below the residential screening levels of 1,600 – 1,700 ppb. GZA conclusion: this has been adequately addressed for residential development; no further action should be necessary. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. In their January 2014 letter, ACEH agreed with some of these c onclusions but found that other issues required additi onal information/investigation. In particular, EHS agreed that no further investigation was necessary for the 1,000 -gallon LUST or the incinerator/burn pit area. REQUESTED INFORMATION In the directive letter, ACEH requested a workplan that addresses sp ecific data gaps regarding potential issues of concern at the site. These issues are paraphrased from the letter and addressed below. Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater. ACEH requested a map and table that shows the following: • The five 2013 soil vapor sampling locations collected by Ground Zero. • All grab groundwater data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary. • All soil vapor data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary. • Locations of sanitary sewer lines which could act as sources. • Former site features within Parcels 15, 16 and 16A.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 7 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Figure 5 depict s the locations of all groundwater and soil vapor sampling points within 500 feet of the site boundary (except to the south of Interstate 580). Underground utilities are shown on Figure 6 . Figure s 7 and 8 show the former site features associated with the former military base. All groundwater analytical data are summarized in Table 1 and all soil vapor analytical data are summarized in Table 2. Fuel Depot ACEH requested additional inv estigation to define the extent of soil and groundwater contamination in the Fuel Depot area. Previous investigation by E&K in 1998 indicated that groundwater contamination by medium chain petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e. diesel or fuel oil range) extended no more than 55 feet to the southwest of the former fuel depot UST installation (Figure 4) No soil samples were collected. To further investigate the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, we will utilize a direct -push drill rig to sample at the a pproximate locations shown on Figure 9. Soil samples will be collected in acetate sleeves at five -foot intervals to total depth which is estimated to be just below the water table or approximately 12 -15 feet below grade. Groundwater samples wil l be colle cted from each boring using a Hydropunch or similar discrete sampling equipment. Samples will be screening in the field for evidence of contamination using a photoionization detector. Selected samples will be submitted to a state -certified laboratory for analysis of total extractable petr oleum hydrocarbons (TEPH) by EPA Method 8015M and for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) by EPA Method 8021B. Railroad Spur ACEH requested the following: • Description of whether rails, ties and ballast r emain at the site. • Description of the extent of grading along the railroad spur. • Summary of results of previous investigations along the railroad spur. • Sampling of railroad ballast if it remains or adjacent soil if it does not remain. A site inspection wa s conducted on April 19, 2014 No evidence of t he former rail spur was found. The area has been smooth -graded with no sign of ballast, ties, etc. Previous soil sampling locations are shown on Figure 4. Previous analytical results for samples collected a long the spur are summarized in Table 3.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 8 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc We will collect shallow soil samples adjace nt to the former spur along three transects as shown on Figure 9. Samples will be collected from locations approximately 10 feet and 20 feet either side of the former spu r from a depth of approximately 2 feet. The samples will be analyzed for CAM -17 metals, total oil and grease, creosote and PCBs by the appropriate EPA Methods. Site Grading and Stockpiles ACEH requested a description of the sampling or removal actions t hat will be undertaken. Recent historical aerial photos on Google Earth indicate that several grading events occurred between 2007 and 2009 (Attachment B). Currently one large soil stockpile and a smaller gravel stockpile are located on the site as shown on Figure 9. We will collected a composite sample from the soil stockpile and from the gravel stockpile. The samples will be analyzed for TPHg, TEPH, VOCs, OCPs and CAM -17 metals by the appropriate EPA laboratory Methods. Herbicides /Metals ACEH reque sted that the 2013 GZA herbicide sampling locations also be analyzed for metals. Shallow soil samples will be collected at locations duplicating the previous GZA herbicide sampling locations and will be analyzed for CAM -17 metals using EPA Method 6010. Environmental Concern from Phase I Report ACEH requested a discussion of the area of discolored soil that was observed east of the existing structure and whether sampling has or will be conducted. On April 19, 2014 a small area east of the structure was o bserved to retain some water from previous storm events. The mud was dark -colored but did not appear to have any unusual discoloration. We do not see a need to sample this area. Transformers ACEH requested information on whether any electrical transfor mers were previously present at the site. Transformers presumably were present at the site during its use as a military base. We have no specific information concerning the number, location or specifications of historical transformers nor do we know of a ny potential sources of this information.
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 9 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Well Along Western Boundary of Site ACEH requeste d our future plans for this well. Stockbridge intends to properly destroy this well under permit prior to site development. REFERENCES ACEH, 1998, Letter to Rod Frietag, Alameda County GSA, re no further action required, Parcel 16 and Option Parcel, July 10, 1998 ACEH, 2003, Letter to Jeri Ram, City of Dublin re closure of burn pit, January 31, 2003 ACEH, 2010, Letter to Brad Blake, Stockbridge, re closure of u nderground storage tank case, September 3, 2010 ADR Environmental Group, Inc., 2008, Tank Closure Report for The Green on Park Place , October 29, 2008 ADR Environmental Group, Inc., 2009, Remedial Soil Excavation and Sampling Data Report for The Green o n Park Place , July 31, 2009. CA DTSC, 2005, Letter to Karen Moroz, ACEH regarding burn pit closure, December 5, 2005 ENGEO, Inc ., 2013, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , The Green – General Plan Amendment Study, APNs 986 -033 -004, 986 -033 -005 -2 and 9 86 -033 -006, August 2, 2013. Erler & Kalinowsi, Inc., 1998, Results of Soil and Groundwater Investigations and Screening Human Health Risk Assessment for Properties Located at Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard, June 19, 1998 Ground Zero Analysis, Inc. 2 013, Subsurface Investigation Report, The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA, October 25, 2013 Levine -Fricke, 2003, Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Program , October 9, 2003 Strata Environmental , 2007 , Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , Emeral d Place, Hacienda Drive and Martinelli Way, February 2007
Mr. Jerry Wickham Page 11 of 11 G:\Data\GROUNDZE \STOCKBRIDGE THE GREEN\REPORTS\SECOND PHASE\Final Workplan.doc Appendices Appendix A – AC EHS Directive Letter (01/09/14) Appendix B – Recent Historical Aerial Photos from Google Earth cc: Mr. David Clock, Quattro Realty
FIGURES
1
2
3
ND
12
0
,
0
0
0
<4
0
NT
<5
0
<0
.
5
NT
<5
0
<0
.
5
NT
11
0
<0
.
5
NT
<2
0
0
<0
.
5
NT
18
0
<0
.
5
NDND6.6 Xyle
n
e
s
NDNDND
NDNDND
VO
C
s
TP
H
-
D
BT
E
X
1,
2
,
3
1
2
3
1,
2
,
3
TABLES
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
Fe
b
.
1
9
9
8
P
-
1
-
-
12
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
2
--
6
9
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
3
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
83
<2
<
2
<
2
P-
4
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
10
0
4
.
2
<2<2
P-
5
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
6
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
6.
6
--
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
7
--
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
<4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
2
-
-
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
<
4
0
Ap
r
.
1
9
9
8
P
-
8
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
9
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
P-
1
0
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
1
--
9
2
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
2
--
9
6
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
3
--
5
7
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
4
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
5
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
29
5
<2<2
OA
-
6
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
OA
-
7
--
<5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
<
2
<
2
<
2
<
2
FD
-
1
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
2
<
2
0
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
3
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
4
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
5
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Er
l
e
r
&
K
a
l
i
n
o
w
s
k
i
1
9
9
8
FD
-
6
<
5
0
--
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
7
11
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FD
-
8
18
0
-
-
<2
<
2
<
2
<
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oc
t
.
2
0
0
0
E
B
-
8
<
5
0
50
0
<1
,
3
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
5
.
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
9
<
5
0
72
0
<1
,
2
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
5
.
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
0
<
5
0
63
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
12
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
1
<
5
0
51
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
2
<
5
0
83
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
3
<
5
0
53
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
EB
-
2
4
<
5
0
88
<5
0
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
Lo
w
n
e
y
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
2
0
0
0
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
2
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
20
1
1
K
-
1
1
-
-
62
0
1
,
6
0
0
6
.
5
<0
.
5
K-
1
4
-
-
89
<2
5
0
37
2
.
9
K-
1
5
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
1
6
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
9.
0
0
.
6
7
K-
1
7
-
-
84
<2
5
0
3.
9
<0
.
5
K-
1
8
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
1
9
-
-
96
0
7
7
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
2
0
-
-
20
0
4
5
0
<0
.
5
<
0
.
5
K-
2
1
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
20
.
6
2
K-
2
2
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
19
1
.
5
K-
2
3
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
11
1
K-
1
0
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.
7
0
.
5
1
K-
1
0
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
7.
1
0
.
5
8
K-
1
0
4
-
-
13
0
9
2
0
7
.
7
0
.
8
K-
1
0
3
-
-
<
5
0
<
2
5
0
41
1
.
5
K-
1
0
2
-
-
64
3
4
0
4
4
1
.
8
K-
1
0
1
-
-
67
<2
5
0
45
1
.
9
Au
g
.
2
0
1
2
S
B
-
1
-
-
98
2
0
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
2
-
-
76
1
4
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
3
<6
2
<1
2
0
Kl
e
i
n
f
e
l
d
e
r
2
0
1
1
Te
r
r
a
p
h
a
s
e
2
0
1
2
SB
-3
--
<6
2
<1
2
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
3
D
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
4
-
-
<
6
2
<
1
2
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
5
-
-
93
35
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
6
-
-
13
0
2
1
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SB
-
7
-
-
19
0
3
6
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GG
W
-
1
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GG
W
-
2
-
-
<
5
2
<
1
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TA
B
L
E
1
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
b
)
Pa
g
e
3
o
f
3
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
T
P
H
g
T
P
H
d
T
P
H
m
o
B
e
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
M
T
B
E
P
C
E
T
C
E
Ca
r
b
o
n
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
i
d
e
Chloroform
Ma
r
.
2
0
1
2
C
P
T
-
1
<
5
0
11
0
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
2
<
5
0
86
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
3
<
5
0
53
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
4
31
0
8
8
--
<
2
.
5
<
2
.
5
<
2
.
5
<
5
.
0
41
0
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
No
v
.
2
0
1
2
C
P
T
-
5
<
5
0
59
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
6
<
5
0
54
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
7
<
5
0
<
5
4
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CP
T
-
8
<
5
0
<
5
0
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
1
<
5
0
97
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
2
<
5
0
<
4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MW
-
3
<
5
0
58
--
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
MW
-
4
<
5
0
<
4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
<
0
.
5
-
-
-
-
MW
-
5
10
0
<4
8
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
96
--
-
-
MW
-
6
<
5
0
<
5
0
-
-
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
0
.
5
<
1
.
0
1.
7
--
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
pp
b
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
l
i
t
e
r
)
TP
H
g
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
g
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
TP
H
d
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
d
i
e
s
e
l
TP
H
m
o
=
T
o
t
a
l
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
a
s
m
o
t
o
r
o
i
l
MT
B
E
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
t
e
r
t
b
u
t
y
l
e
t
h
e
r
Co
n
e
s
t
o
g
a
R
o
v
e
r
s
S
h
e
l
l
S
t
at
i
o
n
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
PC
E
=
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
TC
E
=
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
-
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
--
=
N
o
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
TA
B
L
E
2
So
i
l
V
a
p
o
r
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
He
(%
)
Be
n
z
e
n
e
T
o
l
u
e
n
e
E
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
X
y
l
e
n
e
s
A
c
e
t
o
n
e
A
c
r
o
l
e
i
n
B
r
o
m
o
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
M
E
K
Ca
r
b
o
n
Di
s
u
l
f
i
d
e
Et
h
a
n
o
l
Et
h
y
l
Ac
e
t
a
t
e
4-
E
t
h
y
l
t
o
l
u
e
n
e
2
-
H
e
x
a
n
o
n
e
M
I
B
K
P
C
E
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
M
B
1
,
3
,
5
-
T
M
B
8/
2
0
/
2
0
1
2
S
G
-
1
N
D
6.
2
3
.
5
ND
5.
6
3
0
ND
N
D
4.
3
7
.
6
ND
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
7
<1.6200NDND
SG
-
2
N
D
7.
4
<4
.
4
N
D
<
1
5
<
5
.
5
N
D
N
D
<
6
.
8
8.
2
ND
N
D
<
5
.
7
<
4
.
8
<
4
.
8
23NDND
SG
-
3
N
D
7.
5
<3
.
3
N
D
<
1
1
.
6
23
ND
N
D
<
5
.
2
23
ND
N
D
<
4
.
4
<
3
.
6
<
3
.
6
14NDND
SG
-
4
N
D
2.
9
1
7
ND
5.
2
4
2
ND
N
D
4.
3
6
.
4
ND
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
9
<1.610NDND
SG
-
5
N
D
3.
9
2
.
9
ND
10
.
5
4
3
ND
N
D
7.
5
<4
.
3
N
D
N
D
3.
5
3
.
2
3
.
6
3
7
NDND
SG
-
6
N
D
11
4
.
6
ND
15
.
9
1
7
ND
N
D
<
6
.
0
76
ND
N
D
<
5
.
0
<
4
.
1
<
4
.
1
7.0NDND
SG
-
7
N
D
3.
0
<1
.
5
N
D
<
5
.
2
18
ND
N
D
3.
5
<2
.
5
N
D
N
D
<
2
.
0
1.
6
<1.6<2.7NDND
10
/
1
5
/
1
3
V
W
-
1
0.
0
2
7
3
.
0
1
8
5
.
2
2
8
2
7
0
<0
.
2
3
8.
6
7
6
5
.
2
<9
6
<
1
.
8
3.
2
<2
.
1
8.6<3.410<2.5
VW
-
2
0.
0
0
6
1
2
4
2
1
1
5
2
1
1
0
8
.
0
4
.
9
<7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
3.
3
3
.
2
2
.
6
2
6
<3.49.84.3
VW
-
3
0.
3
1
3
.
7
9
.
4
<2
.
2
<
6
.
6
87
7
.
5
<2
.
0
<
7
5
<
1
.
6
10
0
5
.
6
<2
.
5
3.
2
2
2
4
.
5
<2.5<2.5
VW
-
4
<
0
.
0
0
5
2.
9
3
0
7
.
2
3
3
1
5
0
1
0
4
.
8
<7
5
<
1
.
6
14
0
2
.
6
<2
.
5
<
2
.
1
4.2<3.47.53.3
VW
-
5
<
0
.
0
0
5
9.
4
7
5
1
7
7
8
1
6
0
<1
2
<
2
.
0
<
7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
2.
5
4
.
4
2
.
4
2
1
<3.4156.4
VW
-
5
D
U
P
0.
0
5
9
.
5
7
5
1
7
7
9
1
6
0
<1
2
11
<7
5
<
1
.
6
<
9
6
3.
2
5
.
0
3
.
1
2
1
<3.4166.3
ES
L
-
-
-
-
42
16
0
,
0
0
0
4
9
0
5
2
,
0
0
0
1
6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
2
,
6
0
0
2
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
1
0
-
-
-
-
CH
H
S
L
-
-
-
-
36
14
0
,
0
0
0
4
2
0
3
2
0
,
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
8
0
-
-
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
Re
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
m
i
c
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
p
e
r
c
u
b
i
c
m
e
t
e
r
(
u
g
/
m
3
)
e
x
c
e
p
t
H
e
l
i
u
m
i
n
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
He
=
H
e
l
i
u
m
ME
K
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
e
t
h
y
l
k
e
t
o
n
e
(
2
-
B
u
t
a
n
o
n
e
)
MI
B
K
=
M
e
t
h
y
l
i
s
o
b
u
t
y
l
k
e
t
o
n
e
(
4
-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
2
-
p
e
n
t
a
n
o
n
e
)
PC
E
=
T
e
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
1,
2
,
4
-
T
M
B
=
1
,
2
,
4
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
1,
3
,
5
-
T
M
B
=
1
,
3
,
5
-
T
r
i
m
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
Gr
o
u
n
d
Z
e
r
o
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
3
Te
r
r
a
p
h
a
s
e
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
ES
L
=
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
f
o
r
S
o
i
l
G
a
s
t
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
A
i
r
(
R
W
Q
C
B
,
R
e
g
i
o
n
2
,
M
a
y
2
0
1
3
)
CH
H
S
L
=
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
H
u
m
a
n
H
e
a
l
t
h
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
f
o
r
S
o
i
l
G
a
s
t
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
d
o
o
r
A
i
r
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
e
d
F
i
l
l
(
O
E
H
H
A
,
S
e
p
t
.
20
1
0
)
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
-
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
--
=
N
o
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
TA
B
L
E
3
Ra
i
l
S
p
u
r
S
o
i
l
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
Th
e
G
r
e
e
n
54
1
1
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
l
i
W
a
y
Du
b
l
i
n
,
C
A
(i
n
p
p
m
)
Da
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
I
D
C
r
e
o
s
o
t
e
P
h
e
n
o
l
s
D
D
T
O
t
h
e
r
O
C
P
s
2
,
4
-
D
B
Ot
h
e
r
He
r
b
i
c
i
d
e
s
TE
P
H
A
s
C
d
C
r
C
u
P
b
N
i
Z
n
2/
2
6
/
1
9
9
8
R
R
-
1
-
-
--
-
-
--
0.
0
5
1
ND
<
1
.
0
40
.
1
7
3
2
2
8
6
.
3
3
4
5
2
RR
-
2
-
-
--
--
-
-
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
<
1
.
0
4.
2
0
.
0
8
7
3
1
2
6
7
.
2
3
3
4
7
RR
-
3
-
-
--
--
-
-
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
<
1
.
0
3.4
0
.
0
9
2
5
2
0
6
3
0
3
9
RR
-
4
-
-
--
-
-
--
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
2.
9
1
5
0
.
0
8
3
2
7
3
7
7
.
2
3
3
5
4
RR
-
5
-
-
--
-
-
--
<
0
.
0
4
0
N
D
6.
6
3
.
4
0
.
0
9
1
2
7
2
2
7
3
4
4
4
09
/
1
6
/
1
3
I
K
H
A
0
0
1
N
D
N
D
<
0
.
0
1
7
N
D
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
2
N
D
N
D
0.
0
6
0
ND
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
3
N
D
N
D
0.
0
0
3
7
ND
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IK
H
A
0
0
4
N
D
N
D
<
0
.
0
3
3
N
D
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No
t
e
s
:
pp
m
=
P
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
m
g
/
k
g
)
OC
P
s
=
O
r
g
a
n
o
c
h
l
o
r
i
n
e
p
e
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
TE
P
H
=
T
o
t
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
a
b
l
e
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
h
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
s
As
=
A
r
s
e
n
i
c
Cd
=
C
a
d
m
i
u
m
Cr
=
C
h
r
o
m
i
u
m
Cu
=
C
o
p
p
e
r
Pb
=
L
e
a
d
Ni
=
N
i
c
k
e
l
Zn
=
Z
i
n
c
Le
v
i
n
e
-
F
r
i
c
k
e
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
Er
l
e
r
&
K
a
l
i
n
o
w
s
k
i
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
9
9
8
--
=
N
o
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
<
=
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
m
i
t
(
n
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
ND
=
N
o
t
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
a
n
a
l
y
t
e
s
)
APPENDIX A
REGULATORY CORRESPONDENCE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1131 Harbor Bay Parkway, Suite 250
Alameda, CA 94502-6577
(510) 567-6700
FAX (510) 337-9335
January 30, 2014
Mr. Mike Parker (Sent via E-mail to: mparker@quattrorealty.com)
Quattro Realty Group
500 La Gonda Way, Suite 295
Danville, CA 94526
Subject: Case File Review for SLIC Case No. RO0003131 and GeoTracker Global ID T10000005547,
The Green, 5411 Martinelli Way, Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Parker:
Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) has opened a Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup
(SLIC) case for the above referenced site in order to review the proposed development of the site. A mix
of residences and commercial development is currently planned for the 27-acre site. One of the
supplemental mitigation measures presented in the Environmental Impact Report for the development
requires that the Applicant/Developer notify ACEH of the proposed project and the intent to utilize the site
for residential uses. If directed by ACEH, a site investigation or health risk assessment shall be
completed prior to commencement of construction.
Our review of the case file, which is described in the Technical Comments below, has identified several
issues that need to be addressed in order to complete assessment of the site. Therefore, we request that
you submit a Work Plan by March 31, 2014 that addresses the technical comments below.
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
We request that you submit copies of any reports you have documenting additional investigation activities
or other work that are relevant to the environmental site conditions and not currently in ACEH case files.
This includes Phase I environmental site assessment reports and site investigations conducted for
potential real estate transactions. ACEH case files may be reviewed online using the ACEH website
(http://www.acgov.org/aceh). Specific relevant reports that appear to be missing from ACEH case files
include the following:
ADR Environmental Group, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Future Emerald Place
Property, April 15, 2006.
Levine Fricke, Due Diligence Environmental Review, Commerce One Parcel, Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580, Dublin, CA, May 20, 2003.
Levine Fricke, Limited Soil Sampling and Analysis Program, Commerce One Parcel, Hacienda Drive and
Interstate 580, Dublin, CA, October 9, 2003.
Terraphase, Phase II Site Investigation Report, Parcel 16A Southwest Corner of Dublin Boulevard and
Hacienda Drive, Dublin, California, September 12, 2012.
ALAMEDA COUNTY
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
AGENCY
ALEX BRISCOE, Director
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 2
Treadwell & Rollo, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposed IKEA Store Development,
Interstate 580 and Hacienda Drive, April 9, 2004.
5411 ma
Treadwell & Rollo, Soil Sampling and Chemical analysis, Martinelli Way at hacienda Drive, IKEA – Dublin
Off-site Development, Dublin, California, October 31, 2005.
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Underground Storage Tank Removed in 2008. On September 5, 2008, a 1,100-gallon steel
underground storage tank (UST) was discovered during grading activities near the southwest
corner of the site. The UST was removed on September 30, 2008. After removal of the UST,
observations and confirmation soil sampling indicated that elevated concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons were present in soils outside the excavation. Fuel leak case RO0002993 was
opened by ACEH in February 2009. Tank pit soil overexcavation was conducted in May 2009.
Further excavation in the southwestern portion of the excavation was conducted in September and
October 2009 along with pumping of water from the excavation. The tank pit water sample
collected in October 2009 detected TPH as gasoline and TPH as diesel at concentrations of 109
and 42,300 micrograms per liter (µg/L), respectively. Additional pumping of groundwater from the
tank pit was conducted in November 2009. Following the pumping in November 2009, a grab
groundwater sample was collected from the tank pit. TPH as diesel was detected at a
concentration of 114 µg/L in the tank pit groundwater sample. Fuel leak case RO0002993 was
closed by ACEH with a site management requirement that ACEH will re-evaluate the case if a
change in land use to any residential or other conservative land use scenario is proposed.
Residential land use is currently proposed for the site. ACEH has reviewed the case and evaluated
site conditions under the framework of the State Water Resources Control Board Low-threat
Closure Policy. Site conditions in the area of the former UST appear to meet the criteria for
unrestricted use. ACEH is not requesting further work in the area of the former UST in the
southwestern portion of the site at this time.
2. Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were
detected at concentrations up to 100 µg/L in grab groundwater samples collected north of the site in
1998. The source of the VOCs was not identified but was suspected to be within Parcel 15 north of
the site. Potential sources within Parcel 15 included two gasoline service station, a public works
shop, and a laundry. In order to help assess whether VOCs in groundwater may pose a risk for the
site, soil vapor samples were collected in a grid pattern from five locations by Ground Zero Analysis
in 2013. VOCs were not detected in the five soil vapor samples at concentrations above relevant
screening levels. In order to provide further information with regard to the location of the potential
VOC sources and the five soil vapor samples collected at the site, we request that you present a
map and table in the Work Plan requested below that shows the following:
The five 2013 soil vapor sampling locations collected by Ground Zero Analysis.
All grab groundwater data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary including but not
restricted to data collected by Erler & Kalinowski in 1998, Versar in 1998, or Terraphase in
2012.
All soil vapor data collected within 500 feet of the site boundary including but not restricted
to data collected by Erler & Kalinowski in 1998, Versar in 1998, or Terraphase in 2012.
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 3
Locations of sanitary sewer lines which could act as sources.
Former site features within Parcels 15, 16, or 16A.
3. Fuel Depot. Further investigation of the Fuel Depot Area is necessary. On April 15, 1998,
trenches were excavated to remove buried debris in the Fuel Depot Area as described in the Erler
& Kalinowski June 19, 1998 report entitled, “Results of Soil and Groundwater Investigations and
Screening Human Health Risk Assessment.” The trenches were backfilled with removed soil and
“track-walked” for compaction. However, no soil samples were collected to define the extent of
contamination within the tank pit. It is also not clear whether all debris was removed from the area.
Grab groundwater samples were collected from 25-foot deep boreholes to evaluate the extent of
groundwater contamination. Based on the results of the groundwater sampling, Erler & Kalinowski
Report concluded that diesel fuel in groundwater was limited to the immediate vicinity of the fuel
storage depot. The extent of soil contamination in the Fuel Depot area remains undefined. In the
Work Plan requested below, please propose additional investigation to define the extent of soil and
groundwater contamination in the Fuel Depot area.
4. Railroad Spur. Further investigation of the railroad spur appears to be necessary to evaluate
whether railroad operations affected the near surface soils. Results from five soil borings along the
railroad spur are presented in the Erler & Kalinowski June 19, 1998 report entitled, “Results of Soil
and Groundwater Investigations and Screening Human Health Risk Assessment.” The borings
extended to a depth of 6 to 9 feet with one soil sample collected at the interface between gravel fill
(possibly railroad ballast) and first encountered soil (approximately 3.5 to 5.5 feet bgs). No soil
samples appear to have been collected from near-surface soils. The extent of grading or removal
of the railroad spur since 1998 is not clear. In the Work Plan requested below, we request the
following:
Description of the whether rails, rail ties, and ballast still remain at the site.
Description of the extent of grading that appears to have been conducted along the railroad
spur.
Summary of results from previous investigations along the railroad spur.
If the railroad ballast remains on site, sampling of the railroad ballast will be required to
evaluate for heavy metals such as lead, which was used in rail car bearings, heavy aliphatic
petroleum hydrocarbons, creosote, and PCBs.
If the ballast has been or will be removed, sampling of the near surface soils adjacent to the
ballast will be required.
Please propose soil sampling and analysis as appropriate to evaluate the former railroad
spur.
5. Incinerator. An incinerator was formerly located in the northeastern corner of the site. In 2001,
approximately 3,400 cubic yards of burn waste and impacted fill was removed from the site and
disposed at the Chemical Waste management facility in Kettleman Hills, CA. In correspondence
dated December 5, 2005, the California Department of Toxic Substances concluded that the site
does not appear to pose a threat to human health and the environment under a residential land use
scenario. Based on the DTSC evaluation, no further investigation of the Incinerator area is
requested at this time.
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 4
6. Site Grading and Stockpiles. Site grading and stockpiling has been conducted at various times
on this site. Since the grading and stockpiling has not been well documented, some investigation of
the source of the stockpiled material may be necessary. In the Work Plan requested below, please
describe the sampling and/or removal actions that will be undertaken for the soil stockpiles at the
site.
7. Herbicides. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated August 2, 2013 and prepared by
Engeo Incorporated, recommended sampling of near-surface soils for herbicides within areas of
proposed residential development. During the 2013 investigation by Ground Zero Analysis, soil
samples were collected at a depth of 1 feet bgs from hand auger borings near five soil vapor
sampling locations and were analyzed for chlorinated and nitrophenol herbicides. Herbicides were
not reported at concentrations above relevant screening criteria. However, the soil samples were
only analyzed for herbicides and not other constituents of concern such as metals are frequently
detected in areas where chemical have been applied for weed control. The lack of metals data
appears to be a data gap. In the Work Plan requested below, we request that you propose soil
sampling with metals analysis for near-surface soil samples to address this data gap,
8. Environmental Concern from Phase I Report. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
dated August 2, 2013 and prepared by Engeo Incorporated, recommended sampling of discolored
soil that was observed east of the existing structure on the site. Please discuss this area in the
Work Plan and whether sampling has been or will be conducted for this area.
9. Transformers. Please indicate whether any electrical transformers were previously present at the
site.
10. Well Along Western Boundary of Site. One well was observed along the western property
boundary as described in the Engeo “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,” dated August 2,
2013. In the Work Plan requested below, please describe future plans to investigate, utilize, and/or
destroy this well.
TECHNICAL REPORT REQUEST
Please submit technical reports to Alameda County Environmental Health (Attention: Jerry Wickham),
according to the following schedule:
March 31, 2014 – Work Plan
Quattro Realty Group
RO0003131
January 30, 2014
Page 5
If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 567-6791 or send me an electronic mail message at
jerry.wickham@acgov.org. Case files can be reviewed online at the following website:
http://www.acgov.org/aceh/index.htm.
Sincerely,
Jerry Wickham, California PG 3766, CEG 1177, and CHG 297
Senior Hazardous Materials Specialist
Attachment: Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
Enclosure: ACEH Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
cc: Greg Stahl, Ground Zero Analysis, Inc., 1172 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, CA 95351 (Sent via E-mail
to: gstahl@groundzeroanalysis.com)
Ryan Batty, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, CA (Sent via E-mail
to: rbatty@dtsc.ca.gov)
Jerry Wickham, ACEH (Sent via E-mail to: jerry.wickham@acgov.org)
GeoTracker, eFile
Attachment 1
Responsible Party(ies) Legal Requirements/Obligations
REPORT/DATA REQUESTS
These reports/data are being requested pursuant to Division 7 of the California Water Code (Water Quality), Chapter 6.7 of
Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances), and Chapter 16 of
Division 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (Underground Storage Tank Regulations).
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF REPORTS
ACEH’s Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (Local Oversight Program [LOP] for unauthorized releases from
petroleum Underground Storage Tanks [USTs], and Site Cleanup Program [SCP] for unauthorized releases of non-petroleum
hazardous substances) require submission of reports in electronic format pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 7, Sections 13195
and 13197.5 of the California Water Code, and Chapter 30, Articles 1 and 2, Sections 3890 to 3895 of Division 3 of Title 23 of
the California Code of Regulations (23 CCR). Instructions for submission of electronic documents to the ACEH FTP site are
provided on the attached “Electronic Report Upload Instructions.”
Submission of reports to the ACEH FTP site is in addition to requirements for electronic submittal of information (ESI) to the
State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Geotracker website. In April 2001, the SWRCB adopted 23 CCR, Division
3, Chapter 16, Article 12, Sections 2729 and 2729.1 (Electronic Submission of Laboratory Data for UST Reports). Article 12
required electronic submittal of analytical laboratory data submitted in a report to a regulatory agency (effective September 1,
2001), and surveyed locations (latitude, longitude and elevation) of groundwater monitoring wells (effective January 1, 2002) in
Electronic Deliverable Format (EDF) to Geotracker. Article 12 was subsequently repealed in 2004 and replaced with Article 30
(Electronic Submittal of Information) which expanded the ESI requirements to include electronic submittal of any report or data
required by a regulatory agency from a cleanup site. The expanded ESI submittal requirements for petroleum UST sites
subject to the requirements of 23 CCR, Division, 3, Chapter 16, Article 11, became effective December 16, 2004. All other
electronic submittals required pursuant to Chapter 30 became effective January 1, 2005. Please visit the SWRCB website for
more information on these requirements. (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ust/electronic_submittal/)
PERJURY STATEMENT
All work plans, technical reports, or technical documents submitted to ACEH must be accompanied by a cover letter from the
responsible party that states, at a minimum, the following: "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information and/or
recommendations contained in the attached document or report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." This letter
must be signed by an officer or legally authorized representative of your company. Please include a cover letter satisfying these
requirements with all future reports and technical documents submitted for this fuel leak case.
PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION & CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
The California Business and Professions Code (Sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1) requires that work plans and technical or
implementation reports containing geologic or engineering evaluations and/or judgments be performed under the direction of
an appropriately registered or certified professional. For your submittal to be considered a valid technical report, you are to
present site specific data, data interpretations, and recommendations prepared by an appropriately licensed professional and
include the professional registration stamp, signature, and statement of professional certification. Please ensure all that all
technical reports submitted for this fuel leak case meet this requirement.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP FUND
Please note that delays in investigation, late reports, or enforcement actions may result in your becoming ineligible to receive
grant money from the state’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund (Senate Bill 2004) to reimburse you for the cost of
cleanup.
AGENCY OVERSIGHT
If it appears as though significant delays are occurring or reports are not submitted as requested, we will consider referring
your case to the Regional Board or other appropriate agency, including the County District Attorney, for possible enforcement
actions. California Health and Safety Code, Section 25299.76 authorizes enforcement including administrative action or
monetary penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each day of violation.
Alameda County Environmental Cleanup
Oversight Programs
(LOP and SCP)
REVISION DATE: July 25, 2012
ISSUE DATE: July 5, 2005
PREVIOUS REVISIONS: October 31, 2005;
December 16, 2005; March 27, 2009; July 8, 2010
SECTION: Miscellaneous Administrative Topics & Procedures SUBJECT: Electronic Report Upload (ftp) Instructions
The Alameda County Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs (petroleum UST and SCP) require submission of all
reports in electronic form to the county’s FTP site. Paper copies of reports will no longer be accepted. The electronic
copy replaces the paper copy and will be used for all public information requests, regulatory review, and
compliance/enforcement activities.
REQUIREMENTS
Please do not
Entire report including cover letter must be submitted to the ftp site as a single Portable Document Format
(PDF) with no password protection.
submit reports as attachments to electronic mail.
It is preferable that reports be converted to PDF format from their original format, (e.g., Microsoft Word) rather
than scanned.
Signature pages and perjury statements must be included and have either original or electronic
signature.
Do not password protect the document. Once indexed and inserted into the correct electronic case file, the
document will be secured in compliance with the County’s current security standards and a password.
Documents with password protection will not
Each page in the PDF document should be rotated in the direction that will make it easiest to read on a computer
monitor.
be accepted.
Reports must be named and saved using the following naming convention:
RO#_Report Name_Year-Month-Date (e.g., RO#5555_WorkPlan_2005-06-14)
Submission Instructions
1) Obtain User Name and Password
a) Contact the Alameda County Environmental Health Department to obtain a User Name and Password to
upload files to the ftp site.
i) Send an e-mail to .loptoxic@acgov.org
b) In the subject line of your request, be sure to include “ftp PASSWORD REQUEST” and in the body of your
request, include the Contact Information, Site Addresses, and the Case Numbers (RO# available in
Geotracker) you will be posting for.
2) Upload Files to the ftp Site
a) Using Internet Explorer (IE4+), go to ://alcoftp1.acgov.org
(i) Note: Netscape, Safari, and Firefox browsers will not open the FTP site as they are NOT being
supported at this time.
b) Click on Page located on the Command bar on upper right side of window, and then scroll down to Open FTP
Site in Windows Explorer.
c) Enter your User Name and Password. (Note: Both are Case Sensitive.)
d) Open “My Computer” on your computer and navigate to the file(s) you wish to upload to the ftp site.
e) With both “My Computer” and the ftp site open in separate windows, drag and drop the file(s) from “My
Computer” to the ftp window.
3) Send E-mail Notifications to the Environmental Cleanup Oversight Programs
a) Send email to .loptoxic@acgov.org notify us that you have placed a report on our ftp site.
b) Copy your Caseworker on the e-mail. Your Caseworker’s e-mail address is the entire first name then a period
and entire last name @acgov.org. (e.g., firstname.lastname@acgov.org)
c) The subject line of the e-mail must start with the RO# followed by Report Upload. (e.g., Subject: RO1234
Report Upload) If site is a new case without an RO#, use the street address instead.
d) If your document meets the above requirements and you follow the submission instructions, you will receive a
notification by email indicating that your document was successfully uploaded to the ftp site.
Attachment 6:
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District " Guidance for Construction GHG Emissions
Reductions", dated September 2010.
Construction GHG Emissions Reductions
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Page | 1
CEQA Guide December 2009, Revised September 2010
GUIDANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
These measures are considered best management practices providing options for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from construction projects. Emission
reductions must be quantified and documented on a case-by-case basis.
Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment:
o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (5 minute
limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title
13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of
Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for
workers at the entrances to the site.
o Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition
according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition before it is operated.
o Train equipment operators in proper use of equipment.
o Use the proper size of equipment for the job.
o Use equipment with new technologies (repowered engines, electric
drive trains).
Perform on-site material hauling with trucks equipped with on-road engines (if
determined to be less emissive than the off-road engines).
Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or
solar, or use electrical power.
Use an ARB approved low carbon fuel for construction equipment. (NOx
emissions from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated.)
Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or secure
bicycle parking for construction worker commutes.
Reduce electricity use in the construction office by using compact fluorescent
bulbs, powering off computers every day, and replacing heating and cooling
units with more efficient ones.
Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at
least 75% by weight).
Construction GHG Emissions Reductions
Page | 2 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guide December 2009, Revised September 2010
Use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at
least 20% based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for
roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized
should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
Minimize the amount of concrete for paved surfaces or utilize a low carbon
concrete option.
Produce concrete on-site if determined to be less emissive than transporting
ready mix.
Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries and equipment transport.
Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.
References:
1. California Green Building Standards Code. http://www.bsc.ca.gov
2. US EPA. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction
Sector, February 2009. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-sector-
report.pdf
3. US EPA SmartWay Program. http://www.epa.gov/smartway/index.htm
4. US Green Building Council. LEED Green Building Rating System.
http://www.usgbc.org/
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City
Council hereby makes these findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental
impacts from adoption and implementation of The Green Mixed Use Project PLPA-2013-00013
("Project") and the means for mitigating those impacts. For the purpose of these findings, the
term "SEIR" means the Draft and Final SEIR documents collectively, unless otherwise
specified.
These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact
contained in the SEIR. Instead, the findings provide a summary description of each impact,
describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the SEIR and adopted by the City, and
state the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation
measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in
the SEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in
those documents supporting the SEIR's determinations regarding mitigation measures and the
Project's impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. The facts
supporting these findings are found in the record as a whole for the Project.
In making these findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings the
analysis and explanation in the SEIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates into these findings
the determinations and conclusions of the SEIR relating to environmental impacts and
mitigation measures, except to the extent that any such determinations and conclusions are
specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
The Project also is subject to applicable mitigation measures in the certified Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR (SCH: 91103064, Resolution No. 51-93, and Addendum dated August 22,
1994, hereinafter "EDSP EIR") and the certified Supplemental EIR for the IKEA project (SCH
#2003092076, Resolution No. 44-04), hereinafter "IKEA SEIR"), as described in the Initial
Study and SEIR. The City already made findings relating to those impacts and mitigation
measures as part of its certification of the EDSP EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan in Resolution No. 51-93, and certification of the IKEA EIR and approval of the
related General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment in Resolution No. 44-04. Therefore,
findings relating to these already-adopted mitigation measures are not made in these findings.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC
Supplemental Impact TR-1: The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
1
SM-TR-1. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of service at Dublin
Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection to within acceptable standard:
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long taper area;
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane;
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the supplemental mitigation measure, the operations would
improve to acceptable levels of service, LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak
hour. Therefore, after applying the mitigation measure, the impact would be less than
significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed Project would
add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-2. The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.3/2.0 requires non-residential projects with 50 or
more employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. As
an alternative mitigation measure, the Project shall prepare a transportation demand
management (TDM) plan to encompass both commercial and residential uses as part of the
project. The project developer shall work with the City to develop the key elements of the TDM
plan,which shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The
TDM plan should include, but not be limited to, the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for the
project including program development,information distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and residents
regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont
Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees and
residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village" property to the
north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least
two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a number
approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
0 Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of
five percent employees.
2
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit,
vanpool or parking costs. or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full
information is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (#10)
intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-3. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
3
Supplemental Impact TR-4: The Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the PM peak hour under
Short-Term Cumulative conditions and implementation of the proposed Project would
add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-4. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service to within
acceptable standard:
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes, three through lanes and
two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard; and
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends from Tassajara Road
to Brannigan Street.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Upon implementation of the above supplemental measure, the operation
would improve to LOS D. The required mitigation measure for this impact is identified in the
City's Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program as part of the widening of Dublin Boulevard to
six through lanes at this location. The Project shall make a fair share contribution toward these
improvements. The TIF fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
With payment of fair share fee for implementation of improvement, the Project impact would
be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-5: The Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive (#5) intersection
would operate at LOS E without the proposed Project during the AM peak hour under
Long-Term Cumulative conditions and the proposed Project would further degrade the
operations to LOS F and add 50 or more trips to the intersection.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-S. At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive, there is a significant
impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
(DCSP)-DEIR. In the DSCP-DEIR, the recommended measure to mitigate the impacts at the
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to the high rate of
pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade separated crossing. The grade
separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic
signal,which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin
Boulevard. Although the Dublin Crossings project has not been environmentally cleared, nor
has engineering or right of way analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this
improvement, the City is aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle
4
mobility along the Iron Horse Trail. The City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at
this location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the separated
bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared, and to ensure that the impacts are adequately
mitigated, the Applicant/Developer is required to provide a fair-share contribution for the
alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the construction of the grade separation structure as planned, the
impact will be less than significant. However,in the event that the grade separation is not
constructed by 2035, the removal of the crosswalk on the east leg of the Scarlett Drive and
Dublin Boulevard intersection will also result in a less than significant impact. The Project is
required to make a fair share contribution to the construction of this improvement. The
project's fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
Supplemental Impact TR-6: The Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road (#8) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of Project trips during the AM
peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-6. The following measures would be required to improve the level of service to within
acceptable standard:
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/ permitted overlap phase for the
southbound right-turn movement and prohibit conflicting eastbound U-turn movement; and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Upon implementation of the above mitigation measure, the operations
would improve to LOS D. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward these improvements.
The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-7: The southbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the
5
proposed Project during the PM peak hour and the proposed Project would lengthen the
queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-7. Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the 95th percentile queue
length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during the PM peak hour. While the queue
length would still exceed the turn pocket storage, the project traffic would lengthen the queue by
less than 25 feet.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-8: The westbound left-turn queue at the Dublin Boulevard
and Hacienda Drive (#10) intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the
proposed Project during the AM peak hour, and implementation of the proposed Project
would lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
Further, during the PM peak, the Project would cause the queue to extend beyond the
turn pocket by 25 feet when it would be contained under No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-B. The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional green
time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the green time for the eastbound
through movement. This will reduce the queue length to 420 feet in the AM peak hour and 270
feet in the PM peak hour. While the queue lengths would still exceed turn pocket capacity, the
project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet in the AM peak hour and would
cause the queue to extend beyond the turn pocket by less than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the Project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
6
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-9: The southbound left-turn queue at the Scarlett Drive and
Dougherty Road intersection would exceed turn pocket capacity without the proposed
Project during the PM peak hour, and implementation of the proposed Project would
lengthen the queue by 25 feet or more under Long-Term Cumulative conditions.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-9. The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional
green time for the southbound left-turn movement. This will reduce the queue length by 12 feet
to 845 feet and to within acceptable threshold. Because the impact is caused by cumulative land
use growth in the region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward this
improvement. The fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building
permit.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR.
Rationale for Finding: Because the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the
region, the project developer shall make a fair share contribution toward the improvement. The
fair share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit. With
payment of a fair share fee for implementation of the measure, the Project's impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact TR-10: The Project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during
the AM peak hour under Existing Conditions. The Project would only add 30 trips to
this segment.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-10. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
7
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-11: The Project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E.
Project traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda
Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by
0.071.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-11. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-12: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron
Horse Parkway to increase by 0.03, where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak
hour under the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-12. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
8
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-13: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty
Road to increase by 0.027, where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under
the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-13. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-14: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by 0.045, where it would operate at LOS E in the AM
peak hour, and by 0.071, where it would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour, under
the Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-14. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
9
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-15: The Project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to
LOS E during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the
project would only add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be
significant.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-15. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-16: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratios
along the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and
Camp Parks, where it would operate at LOS E, and between Camp Parks and Scarlett
Drive, where it would operate at LOS F, in the AM peak hour under the Long-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by 0.023.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
10
SM-TR-16. Implement SM-TR-2
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-17: The Project would cause the volume to capacity ratio
along the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and
Hacienda Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour, where it would operate
at LOS F under the Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-17. Implement SM-TR-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even though such TDM measures collectively have the potential to
reduce traffic volumes and thereby improve the intersection delay levels,it is not guaranteed that
these measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant. No additional feasible
mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact TR-18: The Project could conflict with adopted bicycle plans,
guidelines, policies, or standards.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
11
SM-TR-18. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared
final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with
the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans,which have been
determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines,policies and standards,including but
not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and
approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with applicable City guidelines,
policies and standards for bicycle use and plans. The City will review the final Site Improvement
Plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The requirement for the Project to be
consistent with these standards will result in a less than significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-19: The Project could conflict with adopted policies,plans, or
programs supporting pedestrians.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-19. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project, the Applicant shall prepared
final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that are consistent with
the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map plans,which have been
determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines,policies and standards,including but
not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan Community Design & Sustainability Element,
Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and the Bikeway Master Plan, for review and
approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with applicable City guidelines,
policies and standards for pedestrian use and plans. The City will review the final Site
Improvement Plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The requirement for the
Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-20: The project could conflict with adopted policies,plans, or
programs supporting pedestrians, including the City's Complete Streets policies.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
12
SM-TR-20. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the Project shall submit design
plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy and design standards for review
and approval by the City.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with the City's Complete Street
Policy. The City will review the final plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The
requirement for the Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than
significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-21: The Project could include design features that would not
be consistent with the City's engineering design standards or standards published by the
ITE or Caltrans.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-21. Prior to issuance of any permit for the project, the project developer shall submit
design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy for review and approval
by the City. All designs shall conform to City standards.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Project has been designed to comply with the City's design
standards. The City will review the final plans to confirm consistency with these standards. The
requirement for the Project to be consistent with these standards will result in a less than
significant impact.
Supplemental Impact TR-22: Project construction activities, such as the import of the
fill material and delivery of materials, could result in impacts to vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian access in and around the Project area.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-TR-22. Before issuance of grading permits for the project, the project developer shall
prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be subject to review and approval by the
City of Dublin, LAVTA, and local emergency service providers,including the City of Dublin
Fire Prevention Bureau and the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The plan shall
ensure maintenance of acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and transit routes. At
a minimum, the plan shall include:
13
a) The number of truck trips, time, and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) limitations on the size and type of trucks;provision of a staging area with a limitation on
the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular,pedestrian, and bicycle
movements (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up
and drop off areas)
0 Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The Traffic Management Plan with the required elements will result in a
less than significant impact on vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access in and around the Project
area.
Supplemental Impact Park-1: Build-out of the proposed Project would require the
dedication of 5 acres of local parkland on the Project site. The proposed Project
provides no public park space.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-Park-1. Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the project, the project
developer(s) shall satisfy the requirement to provide parkland through the payment of in-lieu
fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The requirement to meet the 5-acre parkland standard through the
Project developer's payment of in-lieu fees to the City prior to issuance of building permits will
ensure that Project impacts are less than significant.
Supplemental Impact BI0-1: The proposed Project would result in the fill of potentially
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or waters of the State.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
14
SM-13I0-1. The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading plan for
the site:
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these jurisdictional
waters on the site is not feasible, suitable compensatory mitigation shall be provided based on
the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values or acreages. In such an eventuality, a
wetland mitigation plan shall be developed and implemented that includes creation,restoration,
and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance. Mitigation areas
shall be established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement (or similar
mechanism) to an approved environmental organization and payment of an endowment for the
long-term management of the site. If wetlands are determined to be jurisdictional under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and approval of the
Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the potential seasonal wetlands
are non-jurisdictional under Section 404, the mitigation plan will be subject to the review and
approval of the RWQCB.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure will
reduce this impact to a less than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. The
supplemental mitigation measure requires that if jurisdictional waters are identified on the site
and cannot be avoided as part of the development, compensatory wetlands shall be secured so
that no net loss of wetlands will occur. For impacted wetlands, the mitigation requires
development of a wetland mitigation plan that meets specified standards for creation,
restoration, and/or enhancement of off-site wetlands prior to Project ground disturbance
Supplemental Impact BIO-2: Approval and construction of the proposed Project would
impact Congdon's tarplant and other special-status plant species on the site.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-2. Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted on the site consistent
with the California Department of Fish &Wildlife's 2009 Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural Communities. Plant surveys shall
be conducted throughout the blooming period throughout the blooming period of those special-
status for which suitable habitat is present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to
cover the blooming period of plants listed in Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological
Analysis (Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation shall be
provided, such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas presently supporting the species in
question,purchase of credits in a mitigation bank that is approved to sell credits for the affected
15
species, or payment of in-lieu fees to a public agency or conservation organization (e.g., a local
land trust) for the preservation and management of existing populations. The location of
mitigation sites shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish &Wildlife. In the case where special-
status plants are neither federal- or state-listed, the lead agency shall approve the mitigation
approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy in
consultation with the City's consulting biologist. Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a
minimum acreage ratio of 1:1 (acquired: impacted). For off-site mitigation options, measures
shall be implemented (including contingency measures) providing for the long-term protection
of these species.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Implementation of the above supplemental mitigation measure will
reduce this impact to a less than significant level, both on a project and cumulative level. If
impacts cannot be avoided, the supplemental mitigation measure requires acquisition and
preservation of suitable off-site habitats for impacted special-status plant species,in accordance
with certain standards prior to site development
Supplemental Impact 13I0-3: The proposed Project could impact the habitat for nesting
or wintering burrowing owl by disturbing the existing ground surface.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-3. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to grading or
construction activities. These surveys should conform to the survey protocol established in the
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012b). The Conservation Strategy depicts
the project site as being located in Conservation Zone 2,which supports 11 percent of the
Conservation Strategy's study area's unprotected potential habitat for burrowing owl).
Burrowing owls could nest or winter in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed
non-native grassland habitat and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site. The
following measures are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
California Department of Fish &Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls are found during this first
survey, a final survey will be conducted within 48 hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm
that burrowing owls are still absent. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for
more than 14 days after the initial take avoidance survey, the site shall be resurveyed (including
the final survey within 48 hours of disturbance). All surveys shall be conducted in accordance
with California Department of Fish &Wildlife guidelines.
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be
implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish &Wildlife standards.
More specifically,if the surveys identify breeding or wintering burrowing owls on or adjacent to
16
the site, occupied burrows cannot be disturbed and shall be provided with protective buffers.
Where avoidance is not feasible during the non-breeding season, a site-specific exclusion plan
(i.e., a plan that considers the type and extent of the proposed activity, the duration and timing
of the activity, the sensitivity and habituation of the owls, and the dissimilarity of the proposed
activity with background activities) shall be implemented to encourage owls to move away from
the work area prior to construction and to minimize the potential to affect the reproductive
success of the owls. The exclusion plan shall be subject to California Fish &Wildlife approval
and monitoring requirements. Compensatory mitigation could also be required by California
Fish &Wildlife as part of the approval of an exclusion plan. Mitigation may include the
permanent protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish &Wildlife.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Mitigation Measure 3.7/27.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
reduced impacts to burrowing owl to a less than significant level. This supplemental mitigation
measure provides enhanced mitigation that is consistent with current California Department of
Fish and Wildlife standards. The measure requires completion of a preconstruction survey for
burrowing owl and,if found,implementation of an exclusion zone around nests and
development of an exclusion plan with protective buffers and/or compensatory mitigation
under California Department of Fish and Wildlife standards. With adherence to this mitigation
measure, this impact will be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact BIO-4: Construction of the proposed Project could impact
breeding birds on the site.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-13I0-4. Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during
the non-breeding season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will occur
from February 1 to August 31, then a pre-construction breeding bird survey shall be conducted
no more than 14 days prior to construction. Any common bird active nests found shall be
protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer. The buffer size may vary depending on bird
species, the location of the nest, and other factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a
special-status species is located on the site, a larger buffer would be required, such as a 100-foot
buffer for minor disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of
special-status species, the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based on
any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
17
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation will reduce impacts to breeding birds that may nest on or
immediately adjacent to the site to a less than significant level by prohibiting Project
construction during the nesting season. If this cannot be met, a preconstruction survey for
nesting birds shall be completed and,if found, a protective buffer shall be established around
identified nests.
Supplemental Impact BIO-5: Construction of the proposed Project could impact
special-status bats that could inhabit the site, specifically the removal of the existing
building.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-BIO-S. The marketing building shall be removed from the premises during September or
October. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building for bats shall occur no more than
30 days before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified biologist shall develop an appropriate
relocation plan consistent with US Fish &Wildlife, California Department of Fish &Wildlife
and EACCS standards and policies.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: The mitigation will result in a less than significant impact because the
marketing building shall be removed from the premises during September or October when the
building is not likely to be inhabited by bats. Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building
for bats shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found, a qualified
biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with US Fish &Wildlife,
California Department of Fish &Wildlife, and EACCS standards and policies.
Supplemental Impact NOISE-1: Residential land uses proposed by the Project could be
exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels
exceeding 45 dBA CNEL.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure:
SM-NOISE-1. Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive areas of the project
to meet City standards. To meet City noise standards, the following mitigation shall be used:
• Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580. Ensure that all
residents have access to outdoor use areas that achieve exterior noise criteria (60 dBA CNEL for
residential uses).
• A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building
official, shall be provided for units throughout the site, so that windows can be kept closed at
the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and achieve the interior noise standards.
18
• For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580, the buildings shall be designed to
have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations facing the freeway.
• For residential uses, noise insulation features shall be designed to achieve the 45 dBA
CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated windows and doors shall be provided to maintain
interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Additional treatments may include, but are not limited
to, sound rated wall construction, acoustical caulking,insulation, acoustical vents, etc. Large
windows and doors should be oriented away from the I-580 where possible. Bedrooms should
be located away from I-580.
• The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be reviewed by a qualified
acoustical consultant during final design of the project to ensure that exterior and interior noise
levels on site achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses and hourly
average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for commercial uses. Results of the analysis,including the
description of the necessary interior and exterior noise control treatments, shall be submitted to
the City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior to issuance of a
building permit.
• The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that operational noise levels would not exceed 60 dBA
CNEL at exterior project residential uses and would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside these
residences. If needed, the final design and location of mechanical equipment shall be modified
to conform with noise parameters set forth in this analysis.
• A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial portion of the
project site,which would include the proposed hours of allowable deliveries and the locations
and routes of the delivery trucks on the project site. A qualified acoustical consultant shall
review the delivery plan to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels on site achieve
acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan and acoustical consultant report shall be subject to
approval by the City prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial
building.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to this mitigation measure will ensure that all uses on site
comply with City noise standards. Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.
Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1: Construction activities, particularly during site
preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10
and PM2.5 and exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-1. The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures,which
shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g.,parking areas, staging areas, soil piles,graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
19
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
0 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics
control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With implementation of the mitigation measures in compliance with
current Air District standards, the impacts from construction activities will be reduced to less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The Project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the
Project region is in non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality
standards due to emissions of NOX.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-2. The project applicant shall reduce future residential and employee trips through a
Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program approved by the City and including, but not
limited to, the following measures:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for the
project including program development,information distribution and program implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and residents
regarding 511, Ridematch, Guaranteed Ride Home Program,Wheels/LAVTA, Altamont
Corridor Express (ACE), BART, shuttles to regional transit, and any car share programs.
20
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees and
residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with "The Village" property to the
north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels, 511.org, and at least
two other commute alternative service providers to attend and distribute commute alternative
information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a number
approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
0 Provide secured bicycle parking (lockers or cages) for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime" member and pay for membership of a minimum of
five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost or
subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section 132(F) of
federal tax code, an employer can offer its employees up to $245 per month for qualified transit,
vanpool or parking costs. Or, an employer may offer $20 per month for bicycling costs. Full
information is available at: http://rideshare.511.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street parking
requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot, to the maximum extent possible, to reduce
evaporative ROG emissions.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even with the TDM program in place,it is not certain that annual NOX
emissions would be reduced below 10 tons per year because it is not possible to quantify
possible emissions reductions with certainty. Therefore, even with the TDM program in place,
operational NOX emissions could still exceed the established significance thresholds. No
additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The
impact is significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required
in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Project Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The Project
would result in a violation of regional air quality standards and would contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures: SM-AQ 2
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
21
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Even with the TDM program in place, the exact amount of emissions
reductions cannot be calculated with certainty. No additional feasible mitigation measures have
been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is significant and unavoidable and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The Project would conflict with the regional Clean Air
Plan.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-3. Implement SM-AQ-2.
Resulting Significance: Significant and Unavoidable
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not
to a level of less than significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no
feasible alternatives that avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C, Findings
Concerning Infeasibility of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: As discussed above,implementation of the Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in
non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards; therefore, the
Project is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because the Project would not support the Clean
Air Plan's goal of attaining air quality standards. Even with the TDM program in place, the
exact amount of emissions reductions cannot be calculated with certainty. No additional
feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The impact is
significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required in
conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact AQ-4: The Project would expose sensitive receptors to excess
cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations that are above health-based thresholds.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-3. The project shall include the following measures to minimize long-term toxic air
contaminant JAC) exposure for new residences:
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of occupancy prior to
1/1/2017.
22
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) emissions. The site layout shall locate windows and air intakes as far as possible
from I-580 traffic lanes. Any modifications to the site design shall incorporate buffers between
residences and the freeway.
c. To the greatest degree possible,plant vegetation along the project site boundary with I-
580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at roof top level that have predicted cancer
risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3 micrograms per cubic
meter (µg/m3) as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air filtration device shall be as set forth in
subsection e below.. To ensure adequate health protection to sensitive receptors, a ventilation
system shall meet the following minimal design standards (Department of Public Health, City
and County of San Francisco, 2008):
• At least one air exchange(s) per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
• At least four air exchange(s) per hour recirculation; and
• At least 0.25 air exchange(s) per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
e. The type of MERV- rated filtration required to be installed as part of the ventilation
system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or completed
located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per one million or greater but less than or equal to
22 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or completed
located in an area where the cancer risk is greater than 22 per one million and less than 50 per
one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed,inoperable windows and no balconies on building
elevations facing I-580 freeway (MERV 16 Plus) shall be installed in a residential building
partially or completed located in an area where the cancer risk is a greater than or equal to 50 per
one million and less than 62.5 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer
risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater,residential units shall
not be built unless the developer includes specific mitigation measures that are approved by a
qualified air quality consultant and the City that results in a reduction of the cancer risk to below
10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the buildings'
heating,ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) air filtration system shall be required.
Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are decreasing, the maintenance period
shall last as long as significant excess cancer risk or annual PM2.5 exposures are predicted.
Subsequent studies may be conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify
the ongoing need for the filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents (1) require cleaning,
maintenance, and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks; (2) include assurance
that new owners and tenants are provided information on the ventilation system; and (3) include
provisions that fees associated with owning or leasing a unit(s) in the building include funds for
cleaning, maintenance, monitoring, and replacements of the filters, as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid significant excess
cancer risks and required installation of filtered ventilation systems (described above). Note that
new United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) engines standards combined
23
with California Air Resources Board (CARB) rules and regulations will reduce on-road emissions
of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 substantially, especially after 2014.
i. Require that,prior to building occupancy, an authorized air pollutant consultant verify
the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant JAC) exposure as set
forth in this mitigation measure.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the health risk to
future residents would be below the significance threshold. Therefore, the impact will be less
than significant.
Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions,
both directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment
and would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-AQ-4. The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Climate
Action Plan,including policies A.1.4 (Bicycle Parking Requirements),A.1.5 (Streetscape Master
Plan),A.1.8 (General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Element),A.1.9 (Work with
LAVTA to Improve Transit), A.2.1 (Green Building Ordinance),A.2.5 (LED Streetlight
Specifications),A.3.1 (Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance),A.3.6 (Commercial
Recycling). In addition, the project proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs
such as Climate Action Plan polices A.2.4 (Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee) and A.3.5
(Commercial Food Waste Collection Program), and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7
(Multi-Family Recycling),A.3.8 (Curbside Recycling), and A.3.9 (Curbside Organics Collection).
Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions, but not below the
significance thresholds. The project, as a whole, shall adopt a water use reduction goal of at
least 20 percent. A water use reduction plan shall be developed by the project applicant that may
include measures such as the installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks,low-
flush toilets, and the use of water efficient landscaping. The project applicant shall implement a
solid waste recycling program through recycling and composting strategies,which results in a
project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent. Finally, the project shall exceed
2008 Title 24 Building Standards (which CalEEMOd is based on) by at least 20 percent in terms
of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the supplemental list of greenhouse gas
reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to the Final SEIR.
Resulting Significance: Less than significant (consistency with City Climate Action Plan);
Significant and Unavoidable (GHG emissions levels)
24
Finding: Consistency with City Climate Action Plan—Implementation of the mitigation will
ensure that the Project complies with the reduction measures under the City's Climate Action
Plan and will result in a less than significant impact. Project GHG emissions — Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR, but not to a level of less than
significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures and no feasible alternatives that
avoid this significant effect, as further addressed in Exhibit C. Findings Concerning Infeasibility
of Alternatives and Additional Mitigation Measures.
Rationale for Finding: Compliance with City Climate Action Plan—Implementation of the
mitigation will ensure that the Project complies with the applicable reduction measures under
the City's Climate Action Plan and will result in a less than significant impact. Project GHG
emissions —The Project emissions of greenhouse gases would exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds, even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No
additional feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the Project (see Exhibit C). The
impact is significant, and unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required
in conjunction with approval of the Project.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-1: The site has been remediated for commercial and other
non-residential land uses. As a part of the site management terms that were approved
when the remediation occurred in 2010, the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health (ACDEH) required that, if any residential or other similar land
use is proposed at the Property, the ACDEH must be notified. ACDEH will then re-
evaluate the case upon receipt of approved development/construction plans
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-HAZ-1. The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed project and the
intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can re-evaluate the case. If directed by
ACDEH, a Phase II site investigation or site health risk assessment shall be completed for
portions of the site anticipated for residential development and excavation prior to issuance of a
grading and/or site improvement permit. The site investigation shall be coordinated with the
Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. The investigation plan shall include a
description of the work to be performed, the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and
requirements for quality control. If additional remediation is necessary, a remediation plan shall
be prepared and approved by the ACDEH. Grading or excavation of any identified
contaminated residential area on the site shall not occur until ACDEH issues a closure letter
authorizing residential uses on the site. The Applicant/Developer shall provide the City with
documentation that the above actions have taken place. To protect the health and safety of
construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that meets the federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and implemented if additional
remediation is required.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
25
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level by requiring additional site testing and remediation,if
required by regulatory agencies, before grading for residential uses are allowed.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2: If required, construction dewatering activities could
release identified accumulations of residual hydrocarbons, solvents, and other
contaminants into the environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and
surrounding residents and visitors during construction.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary, a construction dewatering plan shall be
prepared and submitted with a dewatermg permit application. Reuse of groundwater as an on-
site dust palliative or for soil compaction is acceptable if requisite testing and comparison to
CAL-EPA screening thresholds indicate that the groundwater is suitable for reuse. If reuse is not
possible, contaminated water shall be safely removed to an approved site. Groundwater
removed during construction dewatering shall be treated to the extent required by the permit
agency prior to discharge and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Dublin San Ramon Services District, or other agency with
jurisdiction,if the water is to be discharged into a storm or sanitary sewer system.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to less than significant by requiring preparation and approval of necessary permits to
safely dewater the site and appropriate treatment of dewatered material to be reused. Permits
and approvals may be required from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control,
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,Alameda County Health
Department, State Water Resources Control Board discharge permits or potentially an air quality
permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board if Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
are found.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-3: Demolition activities could release significant quantities
of lead based paint and asbestos containing material and other contaminants into the
environment, possibly exposing construction workers, and surrounding residents and
visitors during construction.
Supplemental Mitigation Measures:
26
SM-HAZ-3. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site building, testing
shall be performed by a qualified and licensed environmental professional to determine the
present of significant quantities of lead based paint and asbestos containing material. If detected,
such material shall be removed by a qualified contractor and disposed of in an approved disposal
facility. Necessary permits shall be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to
remediation.
Resulting Significance: Less than Significant
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project,which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the SEIR.
Rationale for Finding: Adherence to the supplemental mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level by requiring the safe remediation of potentially hazardous
materials that could be located in the existing building.
2321191.3
27
EXHIBIT C
FINDINGS CONCERNING INFEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES AND
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES
CEQA provides that decisionmakers should not approve a project as proposed if there are
feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the
significant impacts of the project (CEQA Section 21002). The SEIR identified feasible
mitigation measures that would reduce most of the potentially significant impacts to less than
significant, as further set forth in the Exhibit B findings above. However, the following impacts
in the SEIR remain significant after mitigation (i.e., significant and unavoidable) and no feasible
mitigation or project alternative is identified to reduce impact to less than significant:
(1) Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
(2) Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (410) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour
under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
(3) Supplemental Impact TR-10: The project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
(4) Supplemental Impact TR-1 l: The project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E. Project
traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by 0.071.
(5) Supplemental Impact TR-12: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway to
increase by 0.03 where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
(6) Supplemental Impact TR-13: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road to increase
by 0.027 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario.
(7) Supplemental Impact TR-14: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing to
increase by 0.045 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071 where it
would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(8) Supplemental Impact TR-15: The project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the project would only
add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be significant.
(9) Supplemental Impact TR-16: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along
the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks where
it would operate at LOS E and between Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where it would operate at
1
LOS F in the AM peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by
0.023.
(10) Supplemental Impact TR-17: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along
the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour where it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(11) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards due to
emissions of NOX.
(12) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would result in
a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
(13) Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan.
(14) Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both
directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
The EDSP EIR also identified certain impacts of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP as significant and
unavoidable. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified four alternatives: No Project, Reduced
Planning Area, Reduced Land Use Intensities, and No Development. The City Council certified
the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found
the No Project, Reduced Land Use Intensities, and No Development alternatives infeasible and
then approved a modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP
project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based on City
Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use impacts, would not
disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce growth-inducing impacts on agricultural
lands, and would reduce traffic, infrastructure, and noise impacts of the originally proposed
Eastern Dublin Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable
impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the Eastern Dublin GPA/SP, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93). Since
findings on those significant and unavoidable impacts have already been made by the City
Council as part of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, they are not required to be made a
part of the approval of the SEIR for the Project
The IKEA SEIR analyzed amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
to change the land use designation on the Project site from Campus Office to General
Commercial, which would have allowed an IKEA furniture retail store and other commercial
uses on the site. The IKEA SEIR evaluated the following impacts: Air Quality, Biological
Resources, and Transportation and Circulation. On March 16, 2004, the City certified the IKEA
SEIR and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: excessive
levels of ozone precursors above regulatory thresholds on a project and cumulative basis,
excessive levels of carbon monoxide emissions above regulatory thresholds, and increase of
project traffic on local freeways on a cumulative basis (City Council Resolution No. 44-04).
Since findings on those significant and unavoidable impacts have already been made by the City
2
Council as part of the certification of the IKEA SEIR, they are not required to be made a part of
the approval of the SEIR for the Project.
Therefore, in compliance with CEQA, the following findings address whether there are any
feasible alternatives or any additional feasible mitigation measures available that would reduce
the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SEIR for the Project to less than
significant.
FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project..."
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). "If a project alternative will substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decisionmaker should not approve
the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations,... make the project alternative infeasible." (CEQA Sections 21002 and
21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3).) The City Council hereby makes these
findings with respect to alternatives.
The Project objectives are set forth in Section 3.5 of the Draft SEIR. Alternatives are identified
and analyzed in Section 5.3 of the Draft SEIR and include the required No Project/No
Development Alternative, a General Commercial Development Alternative, and a Campus
Office Development Alternative. Each of the alternatives was assessed for each resource topic
and compared to potential Project impacts. As further set forth below, the City Council has
considered the alternatives identified and analyzed in Section 5.3 of the Draft SEIR and finds
them to be infeasible for specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA
Sections 21002 and 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). For CEQA
purposes, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological,
and legal factors. (CEQA Section 21061.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15364.)
Alternative#1: No Project/No Development Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) requires that a"No-Project" alternative be evaluated as
part of an EIR, proceeding under one of two scenarios: the project area remaining in its current
state or development of the project area under its current General Plan land use and zoning
designations. This alternative assumes that the site would remain vacant as it presently exists
and no development would occur. Existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land
use designations would remain as they currently exist.
By eliminating project construction and operation, the No Project Alternative would eliminate all
the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project on traffic and air quality. The No Project
Alternative would not create any new significant impacts.
The No Project Alternative avoids the project's significant and unavoidable impacts; however,
the City finds this alternative infeasible because it would be inconsistent with the Project's
3
objectives. The No Project Alternative is inconsistent with the most basic objectives of creating
a community that is compatible in scale and design with the surrounding properties and land
uses; development of a large vacant infill site in the City; construction of a mix of land uses that
result in a fiscally positive impact on the City's financial and service systems; creation of new
jobs and commercial services for the community; offering diverse types of residential units;
creation of a transit-oriented, walkable urban neighborhood by providing housing with direct
pedestrian and bicycle connections to retail and restaurant uses on-site, the Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station, the proposed grocery-anchored shopping center to the north, and the Hacienda
Crossings retail center to the east, and the future Campus Office uses to the west. This
alternative does not take advantage of the site's proximity to the BART station and the
opportunities these facilities provide for alternative transportation choices and amenities. Under
this alternative, the Project will remain vacant and undeveloped at this time. The undeveloped
site is not compatible with the urban mixed-use character of development surrounding the site.
Finding: The City Council considered the No Project Alternative and declines to adopt it
because it is inconsistent with the Project objectives and is infeasible for the specific economic,
social, or other considerations described above, as supported by the administrative record for the
Project.
Alternative#2: General Commercial Development Alternative
Alternative 42—The General Commercial Development Alternative would include development
of the site under the existing Planned Development zoning. The existing PD zoning would
provide for 270,000 square feet of retail space and 35,000 square feet of restaurant space on the
Project site. This alternative would also include on-site parking, new driveways from adjoining
roads, landscaping, and other improvements. Implementation of this alternative would not
require amendments to the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, or existing
site zoning. This alternative assumes that the development standards and design guidelines in
the Specific Plan would apply to future development.
With the elimination of residential units, the General Commercial Development Alternative
would eliminate the impacts caused by housing, such as Toxic Air Contaminant impacts on
residents and impacts from hazardous materials and noise due to a residential use on the site.
However, the increase of commercial development over that proposed by the Project would
result in an increase in certain impacts. The significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project
on transportation would still occur and, for some intersections, queues, and roadway segments,
may be greater due to the increase in PM Peak Trips of this alternative as compared to the
Project. The significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality of this alternative would also be
greater than those of the Project because this Alternative would result in 11,814 daily trips,
which is significantly greater than the 6,219 trips of the Project.
This alternative is consistent with the Project's objectives to the extent that it provides for infill
development on the vacant site, creation of new jobs and commercial services for the
community, and fiscal benefits to the City. However, the alternative would not promote the
objectives relating to mixed use, residential or transit-oriented uses.
4
Finding: The City Council considered the General Commercial Development Alternative and
declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations
described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
Alternative#3: Campus Office Development Alternative
Alternative 43 —Under this alternative, the site would be developed consistent with the existing
Campus Office General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation. This
Alternative considers construction of up 218,000 square feet of administrative, business, and
professional offices, consistent with nearby properties in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area.
Development of this alternative would also include on-site surface parking lots, landscaping,
signs, and similar improvements normally and customarily included in an office park
development. No amendments to the General Plan or the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be
required to implement this Alternative.
With the elimination of residential units, the General Commercial Development Alternative
would eliminate the impacts caused by housing, such as Toxic Air Contaminant impacts on
residents and impacts from hazardous materials and noise due to a residential use on the site.
However, the significant unavoidable impacts on traffic and air quality would largely be the
same for this alternative as they are for the Project. The peak hour trip generation for this
alternative is slightly less than the Project but will likely result in the same significant and
unavoidable impacts. The daily trips from this Alternative (2,547 trips) will be less than the
Project (6,219 trips). This reduction in trips will result in reduced emissions of pollutants.
However, the reduction is unlikely to reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project to less than significant. The impacts on water and sewer use by this alternative would be
less than the Project
This alternative is consistent with the Project's objectives to the extent that it provides for infill
development on the vacant site, creation of new jobs for the community, and potential fiscal
benefits to the City. However, the alternative would not promote the objectives of mixed use,
residential, or transit-oriented uses.
Finding: The City Council considered the General Commercial Development Alternative and
declines to adopt it because it will not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant
unavoidable impacts and is infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations
described above, as supported by the administrative record for the Project.
FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
MEASURES
In the Draft SEIR and comments on the Draft SEIR, additional mitigation measures and/or
modifications to the measures recommended in the Draft SEIR are proposed to address the
significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. The City carefully considered the proposed
mitigations, and finds the proposed mitigations infeasible, not necessary to avoid identified
5
significant impacts of the Project, or otherwise rejected the suggested mitigation, as further
described below.
In considering specific recommendations on mitigation measures, the City is guided by CEQA's
legal standard to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent
feasible. The mitigation measures recommended in the SEIR represent the professional
judgment and experience of the City's expert staff and environmental consultants. The City
therefore believes that these recommendations should not be modified unless necessary to
comply with CEQA legal standards. Thus, in considering commenters' suggested changes or
additions to the mitigation measures, the City, in determining whether to accept such
suggestions, either in whole or in part, has considered the following factors, among others: 1)
whether the suggestion relates to a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the
Project, or instead relates to an effect that can already be mitigated to less than significant levels
by mitigation measures identified in the SEIR; 2)whether the suggested mitigation represents a
clear improvement, from an environmental standpoint, over the SEIR mitigation that a
commenter seeks to replace; 3) whether the suggested mitigation is sufficiently clear as to be
easily understood by those who will implement the mitigation as finally adopted; 4)whether the
suggested language might be too inflexible to allow for pragmatic implementation; 5) whether
the suggestions are "feasible" as defined under CEQA including being able to be accomplished
in a successful manner in a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, technical, legal, social or other factors; and 6) whether the proposed mitigation is
consistent with the Project objectives.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-2. Two alternate or additional
mitigation measures are: (1) implementation of additional vehicle lanes at Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road; and (2) construction of a bicycle or pedestrian overcrossing at this intersection.
Finding: The construction of additional roadway lanes is infeasible because there is insufficient
right-of-way to construct the improvements. All properties abutting this intersection are fully
built out and purchase of additional right-of-way to accommodate additional lanes would
encroach into parking lots on three corners and a City public art installation on the southeast
corner of this intersection. The construction of a bicycle or pedestrian overcrossing is infeasible
due to the extreme length of raised walkways needed to span these very wide arterial roadways
and lack of sufficient right-of-way to provide for entrances and exits for such overcrossings. For
these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measure for Impact TR-3. An alternate or additional
mitigation measure is to: a) convert an eastbound right-turn lane to a through lane to provide two
left-turn lanes, four through lanes and one right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin
Boulevard; b)provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg with a 360-foot long taper
area; and c) optimize traffic signal split time.
Finding: The construction of the proposed improvements is infeasible because it would require
removal/modification of the curb extension at the southeast corner of the intersection and
relocation of the existing bike lane to accommodate the additional receiving lane, which would
adversely impact pedestrians by increasing the crossing distance and exposure to traffic and
6
bicyclists and adversely impact bicycle use of Dublin Boulevard. For these reasons, the
measures are infeasible and the City declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-10. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard, such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road. Potential mitigation
measures could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the
number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the
travel speed along Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-11. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on
Hacienda Drive.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-12. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-13. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard, such as Dougherty Road, Hacienda Drive, and Tassajara Road. Potential mitigation
could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn
and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed along
Dublin Boulevard.
7
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-14. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence, holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on Hacienda
Drive.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-15. Optimization of the traffic
signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of
pedestrian crossings may help improve the travel speed on Tassajara Road.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-16. The deterioration in level of
service on Dublin Boulevard is caused by long delays at the larger intersections along Dublin
Boulevard. Potential mitigation could include optimization of the traffic signals in the network,
reduction of the number of turn and through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help
improve the travel speed along Dublin Boulevard.
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
Additional or Alternative Mitigation Measures for Impact TR-17. The deterioration in level of
service is primarily due to the long cycle length required to facilitate pedestrian crossings of
Hacienda Drive at the Dublin Boulevard intersection as well as the signal priority given to
Dublin Boulevard; hence, holding back traffic on Hacienda Drive. Potential mitigation could
include optimization of the traffic signals in the network, reduction of the number of turn and
through lanes, or prohibition of pedestrian crossings to help improve the travel speed on
Hacienda Drive.
8
Finding: The proposed mitigations are infeasible because of limited right-of-way availability
and such measures would potentially result in secondary impacts related to pedestrian mobility
and intersection level of service. For these reasons, the measures are infeasible and the City
declines to impose them.
2320900.2
9
EXHIBIT D
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin
previously adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable
impacts of proposed development of the Project site as part of its certification of the Eastern
Dublin EIR (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993) and the IKEA SEIR (Resolution No. 44-04,
March 16, 2004). The City Council carefully considered each significant and unavoidable
impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project and its approval of the IKEA project
on the Project site. The City Council is currently considering The Green Mixed-Use Project
PLPA-2013-00013 ("Project"). The City prepared a Supplemental EIR for the Project ("SEIR"),
which identified supplemental Traffic and Air Quality impacts that were significant and
unavoidable.
Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for
the previously identified unavoidable impacts in the Eastern Dublin EIR and IKEA SEIR that
apply to the current Project.' The City Council must also adopt overriding considerations for
the supplemental impacts identified in the SEIR as significant and unavoidable. The significant
unavoidable impacts on air quality and traffic identified in the IKEA SEIR did not apply to the
Project because the SEIR performed a completely new air quality and traffic analysis for the
proposed Project. So, the air quality and traffic impacts in the SEIR supplant those identified in
the IKEA SEIR.
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted
with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the mitigation measures in the SEIR and other
environmental protection measures adopted through the Project approvals, to be implemented
with the development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the
implementation of the Project carries with it significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Project, and the SEIR.
The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially
adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific
economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the
project.
1. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future
development of Eastern Dublin that apply to the Project include, but are not limited to, the
following:
"...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later
project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (Emphasis original.)Communities for a Better Environment v.
California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App.4th 98(2002).
1
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impacts 3.8/13; and Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.410. Increased solid waste production and impact
on solid waste facilities.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural
Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5 1F, H, U. Increases in Energy
Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution
System.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.61B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects.
Biological Resources Impact 3.71A. Direct habitat loss.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Project SEIR. The following
unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts were identified in the Project SEIR.
(1) Supplemental Impact TR-2: The Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road intersection would
operate at LOS E without the proposed project during the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative conditions.
(2) Supplemental Impact TR-3: The Dublin Boulevard and Hacienda Drive (410) intersection
would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour
under Short-Term Cumulative conditions.
(3) Supplemental Impact TR-10: The project would cause the Dublin Boulevard segment
between Hacienda Drive and Hibernia Drive to degrade from LOS D to LOS E during the AM
peak hour under Existing conditions.
(4) Supplemental Impact TR-1 l: The project would cause the northbound Hacienda Drive
segment of Dublin Boulevard to Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E. Project
traffic would also cause the volume to capacity ratio of the northbound Hacienda Drive segment
between I-580 westbound ramp to Hacienda Crossings to increase by 0.071.
(5) Supplemental Impact TR-12: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
eastbound Dublin Boulevard segment between DeMarcus Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway to
increase by 0.03 where it would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour under Short-Term
Cumulative No Project scenario.
(6) Supplemental Impact TR-13: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
westbound Dublin Boulevard segment between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road to increase
by 0.027 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative
No Project scenario.
(7) Supplemental Impact TR-14: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along the
northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda Crossing to
increase by 0.045 where it would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and by 0.071 where it
would operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(8) Supplemental Impact TR-15: The project would cause the northbound Tassajara Road
segment between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to degrade from LOS D to LOS E
2
during the PM peak hour under Short-Term Cumulative conditions. While the project would only
add 4 trips to this segment, this impact is considered to be significant.
(9) Supplemental Impact TR-16: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratios along
the westbound Dublin Boulevard segments between Iron Horse Parkway and Camp Parks where
it would operate at LOS E and between Camp Parks and Scarlett Drive where it would operate at
LOS F in the AM peak hour under Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario to increase by
0.023.
(10) Supplemental Impact TR-17: The project would cause the volume to capacity ratio along
the northbound Hacienda Drive segment between I-580 westbound ramps and Hacienda
Crossing to increase by 0.02 during the PM peak hour where it would operate at LOS F under
Long-Term Cumulative No Project scenario.
(11) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 [Impact AQ-1 in Draft SEIR]: The project operations would
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards due to
emissions of NOX.
(12) Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (violation of air quality standards). The project would result in
a violation of regional air quality standard and would contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation.
(13) Supplemental Impact AQ-3: The project would conflict with the regional Clean Air Plan.
(14) Supplemental Impact AQ-5: The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, both
directly and indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and would
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
3. Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully considered each significant and unavoidable Project impact in
reaching its decision to approve the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes
that implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and SEIR. The City Council specifically finds that, to the
extent that the identified significant adverse impacts for the Project have not been reduced to
acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, social,
land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project as set forth below. Any
one of these benefits is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. The substantial evidence
supporting the various benefits can be found in the record as a whole.
The Project will further the planned urbanization of Eastern Dublin, as established in the City
General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan approvals. The Project will facilitate
development of an infill area, fully served by public utilities, and convenient to major arterials,
services, BART, and public transit. The Project will develop a large vacant infill property in an
area that is mostly surrounded by urban development. The Project improves an undeveloped site
with convenient freeway, street, bicycle, and pedestrian access and in the proximity of a large
daytime employment center with adjacent offices and access to public transit. The residential
development provides a diversity of types of units to meet different types of housing needs. The
Project will provide commercial uses to accommodate the demands of the community and
complement the adjacent commercial use. Development standards and design guidelines provide
3
measures for ensuring attractive, visually appealing development of the Project. The Project
overall promotes economic growth, creates diverse new employment opportunities, and expands
the City's tax base. Development of the Project site will also provide construction employment
opportunities. The Project will provide a community benefit payment and other amenities as set
forth in the Development Agreement. For all of the above reasons, the benefits of the Project
outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
2320904.2
4
The Green Mixed Use Project Supplemental EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(The Green SEIR MMRP)
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date!
Monitor's Initials
TRA SM-TRA. The following measures shall be required to improve the level of service at Contribution for the full cost of City of Dublin Public
Dublin Boulevard and Arnold Road(#8)intersection to within acceptable standard: the improvement shall be made Works Department
a) Add a 75-foot long southbound right turn lane with a 100-foot long taper area; prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
b) Convert the southbound shared through-right lane to through lane; Permit.
c) Optimize traffic signal split time.
TR-2 SM-TR-2.The Eastern Dublin EIR MM 3.312.0 requires non-residential projects with Prior to issuance of the first City of Dublin Public
50 or more employees to participate in the Transportation Systems Management building permit. Works Department
(TSM)program.As an alternative mitigation measure,the Project shall prepare a and Planning Division.
transportation demand management(TDM)plan to encompass both commercial and
residential uses as part of the project.The project developer shall work with the City
to develop the key elements of the TDM plan,which shall be approved by the City
prior to the issuance of the first building permit.The TDM plan should include,but not
be limited to,the following elements:
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed
for the project including program development,information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511, Ridematch,Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA,Altamont Corridor Express(ACE),BART,shuttles to regional
transit,and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all
employees and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with"The Village"
property to the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area.Invite
Wheels,511.org,and at least two other commute alternative service providers to
attend and distribute commute alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
number approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking(lockers or cages)for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime"member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no
cost or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent. Under Section
132(F)of federal tax code,an employer can offer its employees up to$245 per
month for qualified transit,vanpool or parking costs.Or,an employer may offer$20
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 1
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
per month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://ridesha re.51l.org/rewards/tax—benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street
parking requirements.
TR-4 SM-TR-4.The following measures would be required to improve the level of service TIF Fees to cover the fair share City of Dublin Public
at the Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road intersection to an acceptable standard: contribution of this improvement Works Department
a) Add an eastbound through lane to provide two left-turn lanes,three through shall be paid prior to the and Planning Division.
lanes and two right-turn lane on the eastbound approach on Dublin Boulevard; issuance of the first Building
and Permit.
b) Provide a corresponding receiving lane on the east leg that extends from
Tassajara Road to Brannigan Street.
TR-5 SM-TR-5.At the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive,there is a Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
significant impact from the Dublin Crossing project according to the Dublin Crossing alternative mitigation of Works Department
Specific Plan(DCSP)-DEIR.In the DSCP-DEIR,the recommended measure to removing the crosswalk on the and Planning Division.
mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to east leg of the Scarlett Drive
the high rate of pedestrians/bicyclists crossing at Dublin Boulevard is a grade and Dublin Boulevard
separated crossing.The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at- intersection shall be made prior
grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal,which would allow more green time to issuance of first Building
to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.Although the Dublin Crossings Permit.
project has not been environmentally cleared,nor has engineering or right of way
analysis been completed with regards to the feasibility of this improvement,the City is
aggressively pursuing this project to improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility along
the Iron Horse Trail.The City also plans to include a grade separated crossing at this
location in its update to the TIF program to secure project funding. Because the
separated bridge has not yet been environmentally cleared,and to ensure that the
impacts are adequately mitigated,the Applicant/Developer is required to provide a
fair-share contribution for the alternative mitigation of removing the crosswalk on the
east leg of the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection.
TR-6 SM-TR-6.The following measures would be required to improve the level of service Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
to within acceptable standard: improvement shall be made Works Department
a) Modify the traffic signal phasing to provide a protected/permitted overlap phase prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
for the southbound right-turn movement and prohibit conflicting eastbound U- Permit.
turn movement;and
b) Optimize traffic signal split time.
TR-7 SM-TR-7.Optimization of the traffic signal phase time would reduce the 95,n Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
percentile queue length for the southbound left turn to 371 feet during the PM peak improvement shall be made Works Department
hour.While the queue length would still exceed the turn pocket storage,the project prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
traffic would lengthen the queue by less than 25 feet. Permit.
TR-8 SM-TR-8.The traffic signal at this intersection shall be modified to provide additional Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 2
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
green time for the westbound left-turn movement by reducing the green time for the improvement shall be made Works Department
eastbound through movement.This will reduce the queue length to 420 feet in the prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
AM peak hour and 270 feet in the PM peak hour.While the queue lengths would still Permit,
exceed turn pocket capacity,the project traffic would lengthen the queue by less than
25 feet in the AM peak hour and would cause the queue to extend beyond the turn
pocket by less than 25 feet in the PM peak hour.
TR-9 SM-TR-9.The traffic signal phasing at this intersection shall be modified to provide Fair-share contribution for the City of Dublin Public
additional green time for the southbound left-turn movement.This will reduce the improvement shall be made Works Department
queue length by 12 feet to 845 feet and to within acceptable threshold.Also,because prior to issuance of first Building and Planning Division.
the impact is caused by cumulative land use growth in the region,the project Permit.
developer shall make a fair share contribution toward this improvement.The fair
share contribution shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
TR-18 SM-TR-18.Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project,the Applicant shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
prepared final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that for the project site(including site Works Department
are consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map work,grading, building, and Planning Division.
plans,which have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, encroachment,etc.)
policies and standards, including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan
Community Design&Sustainability Element,Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance,and the Bikeway Master Plan,for review and approval by the City.
TR-19 SM-TR-19. Prior to the issuance of any permit for the project,the Applicant shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
prepared final Site Improvement Plans for both onsite and offsite improvements that for the project site(including site Works Department
are consistent with the Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map work,grading, building, and Planning Division.
plans,which have been determined to be consistent with applicable City guidelines, encroachment,etc.)
policies and standards,including but not limited to the City of Dublin General Plan
Community Design&Sustainability Element,Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance,and the Bikeway Master Plan,for review and approval by the City.
TR-20 SM-TR-20.Prior to issuance of any permit for the project,the Project shall submit Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy and design for the project site(including site Works Department
standards for review and approval by the City. work,grading, building, and Planning Division.
encroachment,etc.)
TR-21 SM-TR-21.Prior to issuance of any permit for the project,the project developer shall Prior to issuance of any permits City of Dublin Public
submit design plans that are consistent with the City's Complete Street Policy for for the project site(including site Works Department
review and approval by the City.All designs shall conform to City standards. work,grading, building, and Planning Division.
encroachment,etc.)
TR-22 SM-TR-22.Before issuance of grading permits for the project,the project developer Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
shall prepare a detailed Traffic Management Plan that will be subject to review and Permit. Works Department
approval by the City of Dublin,LAVTA,and local emergency service providers, and Planning Division.
including the City of Dublin Fire Prevention Bureau and the City of Dublin Police
Services Department.The plan shall ensure maintenance of acceptable operating
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 3
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
conditions on local roadways and transit routes.At a minimum,the plan shall include:
a) The number of truck trips,time,and day of street closures
b) Time of day of arrival and departure of trucks
c) Limitations on the size and type of trucks;provision of a staging area with a
limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting
d) Provision of a truck circulation pattern
e) Provision of a driveway access plan to maintain safe vehicular,pedestrian,and
bicycle movements(e.g.,steel plates,minimum distances of open trenches,and
private vehicle pick up and drop off areas)
f) Safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles
g) Efficient and convenient transit routes
h) Manual traffic control when necessary
i) Proper advance warning and posted signage concerning street closures
j) Provisions for pedestrian safety and access.
Park-1 SM-Park-1.Prior to approval of the first Final Subdivision Map for the project,the Prior to approval of first Final City of Dublin Public
project developer(s)shall satisfy the requirement to provide parkland through the Map on the project site. Works Department,
payment of in-lieu fees to the City of Dublin prior to issuance of building permits. Parks and Community
Facilities Dept.,and
Planning Division.
13I0-1 SM-13I0-1.The applicant shall undertake the following prior to issuance of a grading Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
plan for the site: Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
a) A wetland delineation shall be completed for the site consistent with U.S.Army and Planning Division.
Corps of Engineers protocols.
b) If jurisdictional wetlands are found on the site and if avoidance of these
jurisdictional waters on the site is not feasible,suitable compensatory mitigation
shall be provided based on the concept of no net loss of wetland habitat values
or acreages. In such an eventuality,a wetland mitigation plan shall be developed
and implemented that includes creation, restoration,and/or enhancement of off-
site wetlands prior to project ground disturbance.Mitigation areas shall be
established in perpetuity through dedication of a conservation easement(or
similar mechanism)to an approved environmental organization and payment of
an endowment for the long-term management of the site. If wetlands are
determined to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,the
mitigation plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Corps and
Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB). If the potential seasonal
wetlands are non-jurisdictional under Section 404,the mitigation plan will be
subject to the review and approval of the RWQCB.
13I0-2 SM-13I0-2.Focused surveys for special-status plants shall be conducted on site Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
consistent with the California Department of Fish&Wildlife's 2009 Protocols for Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 4
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Populations and natural and Planning Division.
Communities. Plant surveys shall be conducted throughout the blooming period
throughout the blooming period of those special-status for which suitable habitat is
present. Two or three separate surveys may be required to cover the blooming
period of plants listed in Appendix Ai of the Supplemental Biological Analysis
(Appendix 8.7 of the DSEIR). If populations/stands of a special-status species are
identified during the surveys and impacts cannot be avoided,compensatory
mitigation shall be provided,such as the acquisition of off-site mitigation areas
presently supporting the species in question, purchase of credits in a mitigation bank
that is approved to sell credits for the affected species,or payment of in-lieu fees to a
public agency or conservation organization(e.g..a local land trust)for the
preservation and management of existing populations.The location of mitigation sites
shall be determined in consultation with and subject to approval of US Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or California Department of Fish&Wildlife. In the case where
special-status plants are neither federal-or state-listed,the lead agency shall
approve the mitigation approach using the guidance provided by the Eastern
Alameda County Conservation Strategy in consultation with the City's consulting
biologist.Off-site compensatory shall be acquired at a minimum acreage ratio of 1:1
(acquired:impacted).For off-site mitigation options,measures shall be implemented
(including contingency measures)providing for the long-term protection of these
species.
13I0-3 SM-13I0-3.Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls prior to Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
grading or construction activities.These surveys should conform to the survey Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
protocol established in the Staff Report on Burrowing Ow/Mitigation(CDFW 2012b). and Planning Division.
The Conservation Strategy depicts the project site as being located in Conservation
Zone 2,which supports 11 percent of the Conservation Strategy's study area's
unprotected potential habitat for burrowing owl).Burrowing owls could nest or winter
in the site's approximate 13 acres of ruderal/disturbed non-native grassland habitat
and within the suitable grassland habitat adjacent to the site.The following measures
are consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California
Department of Fish&Wildlife standards.
a) No more than 14 days prior to any ground disturbing activities,a qualified
biologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for burrowing owls. If no owls
are found during this first survey,a final survey will be conducted within 48
hours prior to ground disturbance to confirm that burrowing owls are still absent.
If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 14 days
after the initial take avoidance survey,the site shall be resurveyed(including the
final survey within 48 hours of disturbance).All surveys shall be conducted in
accordance with California Department of Fish&Wildlife guidelines.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 5
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
b) If burrowing owls are found on the site during the surveys, mitigation shall be
implemented in accordance with applicable California Department of Fish&
Wildlife standards. More specifically,if the surveys identify breeding or wintering
burrowing owls on or adjacent to the site,occupied burrows cannot be disturbed
and shall be provided with protective buffers.Where avoidance is not feasible
during the non-breeding season,a site-specific exclusion plan(i.e.,a plan that
considers the type and extent of the proposed activity,the duration and timing of
the activity,the sensitivity and habituation of the owls,and the dissimilarity of the
proposed activity with background activities)shall be implemented to encourage
owls to move away from the work area prior to construction and to minimize the
potential to affect the reproductive success of the owls.The exclusion plan shall
be subject to California Fish&Wildlife approval and monitoring requirements.
Compensatory mitigation could also be required by California Fish&Wildlife as
part of the approval of an exclusion plan.Mitigation may include the permanent
protection of habitat at a nearby off-site location acceptable to the California
Department of Fish&Wildlife.
13I0-4 SM-13I0-4.Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-6I0-4(impacts to breeding birds). Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
Vegetation removal and/or initial ground disturbance on the site shall occur during the Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
non-breeding season from September 1 to January 31. If instead these actions will and Planning Division.
occur from February 1 to August 31,then a pre-construction breeding bird survey
shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to construction.Any common bird
active nests found shall be protected by a minimum 50-foot exclusion buffer.The
buffer size may vary depending on bird species,the location of the nest,and other
factors. If a breeding bird survey determines that a special-status species is located
on the site,a larger buffer would be required,such as a 100-foot buffer for minor
disturbances and a 250-foot buffer for major disturbances. In the case of special-
status species,the size of buffers and other measures would be implemented based
on any applicable CDFW guidance and standards.
13I0-5 SM-BIO-S.The marketing building shall be removed from the premises during Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
September or October.Pre-construction surveys of the marketing building for bats Permit or any site disturbance. Works Department
shall occur no more than 30 days before its removal. If bats are found,a qualified and Planning Division.
biologist shall develop an appropriate relocation plan consistent with US Fish&
Wildlife,California Department of Fish&Wildlife and EACCS standards and policies.
NOISE- SM-NOISE-1.Reduce exterior and interior noise levels in noise sensitive areas of the Numbers 1-6: City of Dublin Building
1 project to meet City standards.To meet City noise standards,the following mitigation Prior to issuance of Building and Planning
shall be used: Permits for any residential Divisions.
1. Locate noise-sensitive outdoor use areas away from Interstate 580.Ensure that building.
all residents have access to outdoor use areas that achieve exterior noise criteria
(60 dBA CNEL for residential uses). Number 7: Prior to issuance of
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 6
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
2. A suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation,as determined by the local the Certificate of Occupancy(or
building official,shall be provided for units throughout the site,so that windows finagling the permit and thereby
can be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control interior noise and granting occupancy)for any
achieve the interior noise standards. commercial building.
3. For the first row of buildings facing Interstate 580,the buildings shall be designed
to have sealed windows and no balconies on elevations facing the freeway.
4. For residential uses,noise insulation features shall be designed to achieve the 45
dBA CNEL interior noise standard. Sound rated windows and doors shall be
provided to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels.Additional
treatments may include, but are not limited to,sound rated wall construction,
acoustical caulking,insulation,acoustical vents,etc.Large windows and doors
should be oriented away from the 1-580 where possible. Bedrooms should be
located away from I-580.
5. The final specifications for noise insulation treatments shall be reviewed by a
qualified acoustical consultant during final design of the project to ensure that
exterior and interior noise levels on site achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise
standard for residential uses and hourly average noise levels to 45 dBA Leq for
commercial uses. Results of the analysis,including the description of the
necessary interior and exterior noise control treatments,shall be submitted to the
City along with the building plans and shall approved by the City prior to issuance
of a building permit.
6. The final design and location of project mechanical equipment shall be reviewed
by a qualified acoustical consultant to confirm that operational noise levels would
not exceed 60 dBA CNEL at exterior project residential uses and would not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL inside these residences. If needed,the final design and
location of mechanical equipment shall be modified to conform with noise
parameters set forth in this analysis.
7. A truck delivery plan shall be submitted to the City for the commercial portion of
the project site,which would include the proposed hours of allowable deliveries
and the locations and routes of the delivery trucks on the project site.A qualified
acoustical consultant shall review the delivery plan to ensure that interior and
exterior noise levels on site achieve acceptable levels. The truck delivery plan
and acoustical consultant report shall be subject to approval by the City prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any commercial building.
Air SM-AQ-1.The project applicant shall adhere to the following dust control measures, Prior to issuance of Grading City of Dublin Public
Quality which shall replace those included in EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0: Permit or any site disturbance Works Department
a) All exposed surfaces(e.g.,parking areas,staging areas,soil piles,graded areas, and ongoing. and Planning Division.
and unpaved access roads)shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil,sand,or other loose material off-site shall be
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 7
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using
wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways,driveways,and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible.Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes(as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13,Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations[CCR]).Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications.All equipment shall be checked by a certified
mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints.This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours.The Air District's phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
AQ-1 SM-AQ-2.The project applicant shall reduce future residential and employee trips Prior to issuance of the first City of Dublin Public
through a Traffic Demand Management(TDM)program approved by the City and building permit. Works Department
including, but not limited to,the following measures: and Planning Division.
a) Appoint Transportation Coordinator to oversee the TDM program developed for
the project including program development,information distribution and program
implementation.
b) Promote and distribute hard copy information quarterly to all employees and
residents regarding 511,Ridematch,Guaranteed Ride Home Program,
Wheels/LAVTA,Altamont Corridor Express(ACE), BART,shuttles to regional
transit,and any car share programs.
c) Distribute information quarterly regarding above by email blast to all employees
and residents.
d) Co-sponsor subarea transportation fair once a year with"The Village"property to
the north and/or other developments in the East Dublin area. Invite Wheels,
511.org,and at least two other commute alternative service providers to attend
and distribute commute alternative information.
e) Provide bicycle parking facilities for 20 percent of commercial car spaces or a
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 8
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
number approved by the City beyond the City's bicycle rack requirement.
f) Provide secured bicycle parking(lockers or cages)for employees.
g) Join City Car Share as a"Biz Prime"member and pay for membership of a
minimum of five percent employees.
h) Implement a BART subsidy program that would provide BART tickets at no cost
or subsidized rate to all employees.
i) Implement a Commuter Tax Benefit Program or equivalent.Under Section 132(F)
of federal tax code,an employer can offer its employees up to$245 per month
for qualified transit,vanpool or parking costs.Or,an employer may offer$20 per
month for bicycling costs. Full information is available at:
http://ddeshare.51 l.org/rewards/tax_benefits.aspx
j) Provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools as part of off-street
parking requirements.
k) Provide shading in the parking lot,to the maximum extent possible,to reduce
evaporative ROG emissions.
AQ-4 SM-AQ-3.The project shall include the following measures to minimize long-term Prior to occupancy of any City of Dublin Building
toxic air contaminant(TAC)exposure for new residences: residential building on the and Planning
a. Ensure that no residential buildings would have a full year of occupancy prior to project site. Divisions.
1/11/2017.
b. Design buildings and site to limit exposure from sources of TAC and fine
particulate matter(PM2.5)emissions. The site layout shall locate windows and
air intakes as far as possible from 1-580 traffic lanes.Any modifications to the site
design shall incorporate buffers between residences and the freeway.
G. To the greatest degree possible,plant vegetation along the project site boundary
with 1-580 that includes trees and shrubs that provide a dense vegetative barrier.
d. Install air filtration in residential buildings at rooftop level that have predicted
cancer risks in excess of 10 in one million or PM2.5 concentrations above 0.3
micrograms per cubic meter(pg/m3)as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4. The type of air
filtration device shall be as set forth in subsection e below..To ensure adequate
health protection to sensitive receptors,a ventilation system shall meet the
following minimal design standards(Department of Public Health,City and
County of San Francisco,2008):
• At least one air exchange(s)per hour of fresh outside filtered air;
• At least four air exchange(s)per hour recirculation;and
• At least 0.25 air exchange(s)per hour in unfiltered infiltration.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 9
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
e. The type of MERV-rated filtration required to be installed as part of the
ventilation system in the residential buildings shall be as follows:
1) MERV13 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is 10 per one million or
greater but less than or equal to 22 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4
for unmitigated cancer risks.
2) MERV16 filtration shall be installed in a residential building partially or
completed located in an area where the cancer risk is greater than 22 per
one million and less than 50 per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for
unmitigated cancer risks.
3) MERV16 filtration and sealed,inoperable windows and no balconies on
building elevations facing 1-580 freeway(MERV 16 Plus)shall be installed in
a residential building partially or completed located in an area where the
cancer risk is a greater than or equal to 50 per one million and less than 62.5
per one million as shown in Exhibit 4.7-4 for unmitigated cancer risks.
4) In areas where the cancer risk is 62.5 per one million or greater,residential
units shall not be built unless the developer includes specific mitigation
measures that are approved by a qualified air quality consultant and the City
that results in a reduction of the cancer risk to below 10 per one million.
f. As part of implementing this measure,an ongoing maintenance plan for the
buildings'heating,ventilation,and air conditioning(HVAC)air filtration system
shall be required.Recognizing that emissions from air pollution sources are
decreasing,the maintenance period shall last as long as significant excess
cancer risk or annual PM25 exposures are predicted.Subsequent studies may be
conducted by an air quality expert approved by the City to identify the ongoing
need for the filtered ventilation systems as future information becomes available.
g. Ensure that the lease agreement and other property documents(1)require
cleaning,maintenance,and monitoring of the affected buildings for air flow leaks;
(2)include assurance that new owners and tenants are provided information on
the ventilation system;and(3)include provisions that fees associated with
owning or leasing a unit(s)in the building include funds for cleaning,
maintenance,monitoring,and replacements of the filters,as needed.
h. Consider phasing developments located closest to I-580 to avoid significant
excess cancer risks and required installation of filtered ventilation systems
(described above). Note that new United States Environmental Protection
Agency(U.S.EPA)engines standards combined with California Air Resources
Board(CARB)rules and regulations will reduce on-road emissions of diesel
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 10
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
particulate matter(DPM)and PM2.5 substantially,especially after 2014.
i. Require that,prior to building occupancy,an authorized air pollutant consultant
verify the installation of all necessary measures to reduce toxic air contaminant
JAC)exposure as set forth in this mitigation measure.
AQ-5 SM-AQ-4.The final design of the project shall include all requirements of the City Prior to issuance of Building City of Dublin Building
Climate Action Plan,including policies A.1.4(Bicycle Parking Requirements),A.1.5 Permits. and Planning
(Streetscape Master Plan),A.1.8(General Plan Community Design and Sustainability Divisions.
Element),A.1.9(Work with LAVTA to Improve Transit),A.2.1 (Green Building
Ordinance),A.2.5(LED Streetlight Specifications),A.3.1 (Construction and
Demolition Debris Ordinance),A.3.6(Commercial Recycling).In addition,the project
proponent is encouraged to participate in subsidy programs such as Climate Action
Plan polices A.2.4(Reduced Solar Installation Permit Fee)and A.3.5(Commercial
Food Waste Collection Program),and non-subsidy programs such as policies A.3.7
(Multi-Family Recycling),A.3.8(Curbside Recycling),and A.3.9(Curbside Organics
Collection). Implementation of these mitigation measure would reduce GHG
emissions,but not below the significance thresholds. The project,as a whole,shall
adopt a water use reduction goal of at least 20 percent.A water use reduction plan
shall be developed by the project applicant that may include measures such as the
installation of low-flow water fixtures in showers and sinks, low-flush toilets,and the
use of water efficient landscaping.The project applicant shall implement a solid
waste recycling program through recycling and composting strategies,which results
in a project-wide solid waste diversion rate of at least 20 percent.Finally,the project
shall exceed 2008 Title 24 Building Standards(which CaIEEMod is based on)by at
least 20 percent in terms of energy-efficiency. The project shall implement the
supplemental list of greenhouse gas reduction measures included as Attachment 6 to
the Final SEIR.
HAZ-1 SM-HAZ-1.The Applicant/Developer shall notify ACDEH of the proposed project and Prior to issuance of Building City of Dublin Building
the intent to utilize the site for residential uses so ACDEH can re-evaluate the case. If Permits for any residential and Planning
directed by ACDEH,a Phase II site investigation or site health risk assessment shall building on the project site. Divisions.
be completed for portions of the site anticipated for residential development and
excavation prior to issuance of a grading and/or site improvement permit.The site
investigation shall be coordinated with the Alameda County Department of
Environmental Health.The investigation plan shall include a description of the work to
be performed,the laboratory analytical methods to be uses and requirements for
quality control. If additional remediation is necessary,a remediation plan shall be
prepared and approved by the ACDEH.Grading or excavation of any identified
contaminated residential area on the site shall not occur until ACDEH issues a
closure letter authorizing residential uses on the site.The Applicant/Developer shall
provide the City with documentation that the above actions have taken place. To
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 11
City of Dublin September 2014
Impact Supplemental Mitigation Measure Implementation and Monitoring
Monitoring Schedule Responsibility/
Reporting Date/
Monitor's Initials
protect the health and safety of construction workers, Health and Safety Plan that
meets the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall
be prepared and implemented if additional remediation is required.
HAZ-2 SM-HAZ-2. If construction dewatering is necessary,a construction dewatering plan Prior to issuance Grading City of Dublin Public
shall be prepared and submitted with a dewatering permit application. Reuse of Permit. Works Department
groundwater as an on-site dust palliative or for soil compaction is acceptable if and Planning
requisite testing and comparison to CAL-EPA screening thresholds indicate that the Divisions.
groundwater is suitable for reuse. If reuse is not possible,contaminated water shall
be safely removed to an approved site. Groundwater removed during construction
dewatering shall be treated to the extent required by the permit agency prior to
discharge and the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board(RWQCB),Dublin San Ramon Services District,or other
agency with jurisdiction,if the water is to be discharged into a storm or sanitary sewer
system.
HAZ-3 SM-HAZ-3.Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for the existing on-site building, Prior to issuance of a Building City of Dublin Building
testing shall be performed by a qualified and licensed environmental professional to Permits for demolition. and Planning
determine the present of significant quantities of lead based paint and asbestos Divisions.
containing material. If detected,such material shall be removed by a qualified
contractor and disposed of in an approved disposal facility.Necessary permits shall
be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies prior to remediation.
The Green Mixed Use Project MMRP Page 12
City of Dublin September 2014
V"I'llf 1. X
0
Bll�.Ulll
E
January 20, 2015
Christopher l..Rw Foss
City Manager
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA. 94568
Re: The Green lixed Use Prolert
Dear, Mr. Foss:
I It on behalf of Stockbridge/BlIV Emerald Place .Land Company, the Pro"ject Sponsor of
the Green Mixed Use ProJect ("the Green Project"). T pon
he ProJect Ssor hereby respectfully
requests that the City Council continue to a later data its consideration of The Green Project
from February 3, 2015 to April. 7, 2015, or, in the event a five rnernber City Council. is not
seated on January 26, 2015, to a date after the election of the fifth Councilmember. As you
know, the Gree.ri.Project was or cal.endared as Item 6.1 of the City Council Agenda
on Novernber 4, 2014. 'Tlie item. was heard that night and caritinued at that hearing until
February 3, 2015.
As you may recall, at the November 4'h hearing, the item was proposed for contfi.itiance arid
the Project Sponsor agreed to the continuance and deferred its presentation of the Green.
Project to a later date. However, the City Council opened public comment on the itern.and
took testimony fram the public at that hewing. As a result, the Project Sponsor has been
working diligently to address the concerns it heard at the Nov er-riber,4an" hearing, but would
appreciate having additional time to continue to vvorl<.-.with.the community, in part because of
the difficulty of ads ancing community dialogue during the holiday season that has Just
ended. We believe that opportunity for further analysis of rnatters such as the school system
and work on the plan would assist in presenting to the City Council the most thoughtful
proposal possible. In addition, the ProJect Sponsor wishes to have the opportunity to be
heard by a full five member City Coun.cil. ShOUld a new Chou ncilmember be seated on
january 26, 201.5, the April 7, 2015 hearing date could afford any new Councilmember a
greater opportunity to learn.about the Green Project and to review the record to date. We
would therefore propose a continuanc to April 7, 2015. However, if a new Councilmernber
is riot seated by April 7, the ProJect Sponsor would propose a continuarice until after the
upcorning election when a full five member City Couricil is seated.
1 ,)iii i.,"aiit ili�,u (-'emex,, Suhc 3300, San Fnm6scoi, 9,4 4
Christopher L. Foss
January 20, 2015
Page 2
Please do not hesitate to call or contact me if you have any concerns or questions.
Sincerely,
'.ephen J. Pilc
anaging Director
101865643.1